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

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

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

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

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/additional inflation.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

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.

 

 

[markslawson + 1,058]

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..  

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

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).

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

Your Guide to The Great Reset https://community.oilprice.com/topic/21316-“your-guide-to-the-great-reset”-new-world-order-technocratic-plans-for-energy-and-you/     

   

Edited October 13, 2021 by Tom Nolan

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

Event 201 is on the following page https://community.oilprice.com/topic/21211-the-world-economic-forum-davos-setting-the-agenda-on-fossil-fuels-global-regulations-etc/#comment-140156

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

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.

[Piotr Berman + 82]

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 October 14, 2021 by Piotr Berman

[Boat + 1,324]

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. 

[Boat + 1,324]

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. 😂

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

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.

[markslawson + 1,058]

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.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

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. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

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. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

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

[Boat + 1,324]

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. 

[Boat + 1,324]

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 October 15, 2021 by Boat

[ronwagn + 6,290]

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 October 15, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[cbrasher1 + 272]

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

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Far right Marine Le pen French presidential candidate vows to ban and dismantle all wind power.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Presidential-Candidate-Promises-To-Dismantle-Frances-Wind-Industry.html

[RichieRich216 + 454]

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!

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

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.

[cbrasher1 + 272]

22 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

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.

kind of like Shitadel? ummm I mean Citadel 🤣

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

On 10/15/2021 at 10:24 PM, Tom Nolan said:

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.

Peak Meat, EVs, and Solar: The World in 2030

By Irina Slav - Oct 18, 2021, 10:00 AM CDT

Join Our Community

According to Principles for Responsible Investment, the next five years will see “sweeping” changes to government policies in the energy, transport, and food sectors

A surge in electric vehicle adoption, peak meat consumption, and a substantial increase in wind and solar power generation will be among the distinguishing features of 2030, according to a new report from a UN-backed body.

According to Principles for Responsible Investment, the next five years will see “sweeping” changes to government policies in the energy, transport, and food sectors that would lead to peak meat consumption by 2030, and greater carbon dioxide emission absorption by the soil as land use patterns change, Reuters reports, citing the report.

All this would bring the world on track to keep global temperatures rising by no more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial era levels. The more ambitious target of keeping temperatures rising by no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times would require more political action, the report also said.

“BlackRock believes climate risk is investment risk and assessing climate risk on the path to net zero requires credible scenarios outlining not only what is possible but what is likely,” said the head of ESG Investment, Global Fixed Income at BlackRock, Ashley Schulten.

BlackRock is among the strategic partners of the Inevitable Policy Response, the climate forecast division of the Principles for Responsible Investment.

“The detailed policy forecasts in this work help the market conceptualize the key changes that could occur in energy and land systems across the world if the forecasted climate policy acceleration occurs,” Schulten also said, as quoted by Reuters.

The 1.5-degree scenario will be a lot more difficult to achieve, according to the authors of the report. It would require the almost complete global phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040, the end of coal by 2035, and 100-percent clean power generation by 2045.

Even the “Forecast Policy Scenario” that the authors see as most likely will be challenging in light of current energy demand and supply trends.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Peak-Meat-EVs-and-Solar-The-World-in-2030.html

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/one-bank-reveals-dismal-truth-about-150-trillion-crusade-against-climate-change

One Bank Reveals The Dismal Truth About The $150 Trillion Crusade Against Climate Change

by Tyler Durden

Tuesday, Oct 19, 2021 - 04:55 AM

Last week, Bank of America sparked a firestorm of reaction amid both the pro and contra climate change camps, when it published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World (available to all ZH pro subs), and which serves as a key primer to today's Net Zero reality, if for no other reason than for being one of the first banks to quantify the cost of the biggest economic, ecologic and social overhaul in modern history.

The bottom line: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a "net zero" world over 30 years - equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments - and amounting to twice current global GDP.

Needless to say, the private sector has nowhere near the capital required to complete this investment which is why Bank of America generously estimate that all or parts of the bill would have to be footed by central banks in the form of tens of trillions in QE. And since QE is essentially debt monetization, and since $150 trillion in new debt would have devastating consequences on the economy, BofA was kind enough to share its calculation of just how inflationary this billionaire pet project would be: the "full monetization" scenario, where central banks inject $5 trillion in liquidity every year via QE for 30 years, would result in incremental 3% of inflation for a good decade. This is inflation over and above whatever is already coming down the pipeline.

 

Which is where we get to the punchline, because as BofA admits, the crusade against climate change, the ESG doctrine, the "Net Zero" world, whatever one wants to call it, it's all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history, one wrapped in the "noble" veneer of fighting for the most important cause in the history of civilization, but in reality it's just the biggest wealth transfer scheme 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

At this point alarm bells should be going off even among the most brain-dead progressives because for all its touted benefits, the costs are starting to emerge and - at least when it comes to the next two or three generations - they will be absolutely crushing for the middle class, while allowing the top 1% to plunder and pillage virtually all the world's assets. Think of it as the biggest mandated theft in world history, and suddenly one can understand why every private-jet setting billionaire is oh so very vocally in support of a "net zero" world.

It gets worse.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, and the hard questions like "who gets to pay for all this" are being asked, Bank of America had a follow up report in which it made it abundantly clear that "contrary to some arguments, we think climate mitigation efforts are likely to hurt growth in the next decade or so."

In his note titled "A hot take on climate change" (once again available to professional subscribers in the usual place), Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris first goes through all the familiar steps of just why it is so imperative - and noble - to do something to fight greenhouse gases (similar to what we have read for much of the early part of the 20th century, when article after article starting in 1912 lamented the catastrophe that is global warming, at least until the 1970s when the lack of actual global warming prompted "scientists" to suggest that global cooling and "a new ice age" is inevitable instead). At least the scientists could agree that it's "global something" (turns out it would really mean "global money printing"), and as Harris laid it out, this is what "scientific consensus" appears to agree on now:

1. Human behavior is having a significant impact on climate change and climate events.
2. Even under optimistic assumptions—such as achieving net zero emissions by 2050—the impacts will likely grow over this century.
3. Early action is much more effective than waiting until later.
4. Uncertainty about the exact impact is not an excuse for inaction: a wide range of outcomes means more, not less urgency in acting.

None of the above is new as the mainstream media has been bombarding its audience for the past decade with emotional platitudes and qualitative appeals as to why something has to be done.

However, as we first touched upon last week, any discussion of the economics of climate change should start and end with the fact
that it is the ultimate example of “externalities”—private activities (usually for corporations who scions and shareholders are by now in the top 0.01% of global wealth) that create public costs. Indeed, as Harris writes, climate change is the ultimate externality because activity in one place impacts the whole world. The fact that climate change is global in nature and that so much of the benefit of actions accrues to everyone else has some powerful implications.

First, unlike other technology “races”, climate mitigation is more of a cooperative “game” than a competition. When countries like the US and China “compete” to develop new technologies, two points of conflict often tend to arise—a fight for market share and a fight for geopolitical superiority. By contrast, countries that develop efficient climate mitigation technologies have a strong incentive to share the benefits. If they hoard the technology, the impact on their own climate will be much smaller.

This is great... if only it weren't a pipe dream. Why? Because as the recent refusal by China's Xi Jinping - incidentally the world's largest polluter - to join his fellow "climate change crusading" world leaders at the COP26 Net Zero summit in Italy later this month, it's all one giant spectacle meant for the masses. Because if the world's largest polluter is making it clear he has no interest in actually reducing his own CO emissions, then anyone preaching some bullshit about a "cooperative game" can shove it.

Still, where Harris is somewhat correct, is in pointing out the "depressing consensus out of the climate change literature" that even if everyone cooperates, the earth will continue to warm as there are lags in the link between GHG and global warming. Indeed, under the best of outcomes—with every country hitting aggressive mid-century goals—the policy shift will mitigate, not stop the problem. Hence in BofA's view, "climate events will be a rising downside risk—of varying intensity—under almost any plausible scenario."

In other words, the net zero theater of the absurd is one where the actors' motives clearly diverge - when only a convergence from the start could make it work - yet where even a best case scenario of complete cooperation has no chance of actually stopping the problem, just mitigating it. Oh, and meanwhile, the world is set to incur some $150 trillion in costs.

Which then brings us to BofA's core assessment: will all this be good or bad for growth? Here, we find some unexpected truth...

In BofA's view, both press reports and many of the studies of climate change focus on the wrong side of the economy—the impact on aggregate demand rather than on productive capacity. For example, the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) argues that pushing toward net zero emissions would lower employment in the traditional energy sector by 5 million by 2030, but would add 14 million jobs in the clean energy sector. They also argue that “the increase in jobs and investment stimulates economic output, resulting in a net increase in global GDP to 2030.” Global GDP growth averages 0.4 higher over the 2020 to 2030 period. The downside would be that some countries would be winners and others would be losers, and that inflation - once one factors in the trillions and trillions of central bank QE needed to fund this whole crusade - could be 1-to-3% higher.

Here Bank of America disagrees, writing that by the time serious climate mitigation efforts are underway the global economy will likely be close to full employment. This will likely be the case in the US. Hence staffing up the industry means drawing workers out of the rest of the economy. At the same time, building up green energy infrastructure will require more than a doubling of investment in the sector, from roughly 2% of GDP now to a 4.5% average over the 2020-30 period. Where is that 2.5% of GDP going to come from? (spoiler alert: money printing, and everyone knows this).

Or maybe note: Harris admits that in the short run, central banks could in effect accommodate the surge in demand, allowing their economies to overheat. Hence the IEA estimate of 1-to-3% higher inflation. However, the BofA economist disagrees with that estimate as well. If the Fed allows a permanent overshoot of economic potential, inflation will not just increase, it would trend higher. As in the 1970s there will be a feedback loop between price inflation, wage inflation and price expectations.

Translation: the "net zero" crusade against climate change really is.... the necessary and sufficient condition to trigger the hyperinflation that the world's massively indebted nations need to inflate away their debt.

But wait, there's more, because as Harris concedes next, in reality, while inflation is set to soar, climate mitigation is "also likely to slow the supply side of the economy,  particularly in the ramping up phase." He explains further:

Big structural changes in the economy tend to create big transitional challenges. Workers need to move from one sector to another, some industries will boom while others shrink, and as regulations and taxes increase, capital that had been invested in producing and using dirty energy will rapidly become obsolete.

All of this means lower trend growth during the transition from a dirty to a green economy. And, as noted above, there isn't even any assurance that a transition to a green economy will ever be completed once it has begun; at best, we may be stuck in the "mitigation" phase for ever.

The highly asymmetric payoff - BofA concedes - comes in the very long-run, with the benefits accreting here and now to those who stand to reap the generosity of central bank printing, which naturally will be those who own the inflation-resistant assets such as stocks, commodities and, of course, cryptos; while the pain borne by everyone else which - sadly - means the shrinking middle and lower classes, who however are "in it for the long run", and for the benefits that a cleaner climate will (perhaps) provide their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Their generation, however, will be sacrificed at the altar of the 0.1% good. Because like every true religion, "climate change" also requires a sacrifice so a handful of chosen ones can live better.

Just the tip of the iceberg

So much for theory, what is happening on the ground? As Harris explains, the progress on policy is painfully slow as some policies continue to worsen rather than help the problem. Consider two examples. First, according to IEA, countries spend more than $400BN per year subsidizing mainly oil, but also gas and electricity consumption. In many instances there is a conflict between helping the poor and helping the environment. Second, despite what BofA calls "rising sea levels and increased hurricane activity," some countries incentivize locating houses in harm’s way through subsidized insurance and disaster relief. Almost as if the countries themselves, and certainly the Malibu beachfront billionaires, don't actually believe in - gasp - rising sea levels. Again there is a conflict between two goals—helping vulnerable people and reducing the cost of climate events.

Meanwhile, climate change and mitigation efforts already appear to be impacting the global economy. While scientists are very careful to avoid assigning a causal relationship between climate change and individual climate events - perhaps for the same reason that "science" emerged as a politically-motivated farce when reaching rash, ideologically-driven conclusions during the covid spectacle  - but they point to some disturbing trends. Consider two examples highlighted by BofA: "First, data published by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the number of wildfires in the US has shown no trend from 1983 to 2020. However, when they focus only on large fires, the amount of acres burned seems to have shifted up significantly starting in about 2000. Second, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory collates studies of hurricanes and tropical cyclones. Its report is sprinkled with the usual qualifiers (medium to high confidence) but the evidence points to an increase in the intensity of storms in recent years." Dear Bank of America - this is called tortured goal seeking: squeeze the data hard enough and any pattern you want will eventually emerge.

More importantly, BofA admits that there is now evidence that climate change and mitigation play "some role" in the recent rise in energy prices (to this we would counter that not only does climate change mitigation play "some role" but that the chief reason for the global energy crisis is the idiotic push for a ESG utopia, something which we warned would happen back in June in "Will ESG Trigger Energy Hyperinflation").

But where it gets worse is that given the regulatory outlook, and the now prevailing stigma associated with any fossil fuels, investment in dirty energy capacity will be low and depend on high prices. Meanwhile green energy is not ramping up fast enough to fill the gap. Hilariously, changes in wind and rain patterns seem to have affected the supply of wind and hydro power. The same wind and hydro power that was supposed to lead the world out of its fossil fuel addiction. Because so blind were the scientists in pushing their political agenda, they failed to see what was right in front of their noses, the same way Reuters figured out last week that European and U.S. cities planning to phase out combustion engines over the next 15 years first need to plug a charging gap for millions of residents who park their cars on the street. Oops - perhaps in retrospect, the policymakers and scientists should have though of the blindingly obvious first, instead of rushing to goalseek the agenda to makes them the most monetary benefits...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/15/2021 at 9:33 AM, Rob Plant said:

Far right Marine Le pen French presidential candidate vows to ban and dismantle all wind power.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Presidential-Candidate-Promises-To-Dismantle-Frances-Wind-Industry.html

It seems that zerohedge.com is under some kind of denial of service attack. It has slowed down so much as to be virtually unuseable.