The world has changed, and now bizarre headlines as the ones below are shared 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
Some people are still confused. The institutions and the erudite officials running them don’t care about climate change and the risks about the fate of future Americans. If they cared a little bit, the US debt wouldn’t be $160 trillion.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
What’s happening, and why the news topics are linked with climate change? The reason is money, approximately $150 trillion of it.
Bank of America shared their massive Thematic Research tomes, covering the Transwarming World and serves as a gigantic primer to today’s Net Zero reality. You can read the report here, and it is exciting.
No one mentioned China’s role in the global climate change crisis. It comes in a very auspicious time for the green cause. When the energy prices are soaring, they threaten to crush grassroots support to fight global warming. Haim Israel report stated:
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.
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 society’s willingness. 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.
Nothing is new, and a five-minute Google research will give you all the answers accepted dogma by the green lobby.
How much would this green utopia cost? It would cost a lot! Approximately $150 trillion over 30 years, some $5 trillion in annual investment.
Now the report is good because it has to be taken very seriously. The details behind the numbers are that the net-zero lobby intends to push the green utopia: info wars explained, ‘’ because it provides an endless stream of the taxpayer and debt-funded “investments,” which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.’’
The C-19 pandemic has so far led to roughly $30 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus across the developed world. However, two years later, the effect of the $30 trillion is wearing off, yet despite Biden’s administration to keep the C-19 crisis at bay and threaten the population with lockdowns. But, the people stated that they wouldn’t comply with the tyranny of the minority.
The establishment desperately needs a new perpetual source of funding, a crisis of sorts. So now the crusade against climate change comes!
Behind the green movement, there was a philosophy and debate. However, we focus on transparent and tangible financial consequences or a world where the establishment agrees, regardless of the Dems support, to allocate $5 trillion in new capital toward some nebulous cause of fighting global warming. Below you can read the Bank of America crucial points:
- 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?
The staggering costs: estimated $150 trillion for 30 years, boosting funding sources to $5 trillion per year equals the entire US tax base. These 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.
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.
… 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.
This time is for the world’s wealthiest plan on robbing all that has left! The poor population will be even poorer. The crusade will need more than $500 billion in annual debt monetization performed by central banks every year, causing hyperinflation.
‘’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.’’ Info wars stated.
Below you can read the BofA’s startling admission of the above:
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.
There would be a lot of inflation, and BofA stated: “green bond purchases could result in a 1% to 3% inflation p.a. shock.”
The answer will be discovered when we observe three different cases. In the first case, the Fed, ECB, and other banks would subsidize the required infrastructure, spending to decarbonize (print the money).
The second case is when we assume that they would take half of the bond issuance.
In the third case, we assume central banks would take a fifth of all decarbonization and spend on the balance sheet.
If central banks only have to foot 20% of the bill or less, the impact of decarbonization looks fairly manageable concerning inflation (Exhibit 108).
The punch-line: as BofA confesses, everything is 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
The C-19 allowed the central banks to make money and led us to Helicopter money and MMT, creating $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the Net Zero myth.