According to reports in Bloomberg and the Telegraph, several major U.S.-based financial institutions have recently left the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Yesterday, Morgan Stanley announced that it had pulled out, though offered no reason. This follows Citigroup and Bank of America both quitting the Alliance on Tuesday, and their exit follows Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, which both quit earlier in the month. Though it is mostly U.S.-based, this has altered the global context of climate politics immensely. So what has caused this ‘exodus’, and what happens next?
NZBA is a project of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Finance Initiative (FI), launched in 2021. It convenes figures, plucked from the financial sector, who agree to attempt to align the interests of major financial institutions towards climate outcomes. It is the fruit of financial news media tycoon Mike Bloomberg’s UN entryism, and his underling, former Governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, now manager of Bloomberg’s business empire, Mark Carney. Bloomberg and Carney are respectively UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions and Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Off-T
“…a police station in London has been surrounded by a mob chanting “Let them go!” There is no information…”
Apparently Darren Grimes has some information on his Twitter feed. I don’t do Twitter unfortunately.
https://x.com/darrengrimes_/status/1809986616347254922?s=48&t=z-QEFmo-T7EyF1VraAWbsg
Here is some video of the incident.
I wonder what the plod response would be if a
ReformFar Right crowd had done this?“It looks like the author has confused market value and cost”————NOPE. —-There is no confusion. This is deliberate activism for a particular product whether that be sun or wind because of the political leanings of the person writing the article.
—–Government and their bought and paid for scientists know full well that wind and sun are expensive unreliable energy solutions but for political purposes they are going to fob you off with those anyway. You only have to understand what those politics are. ——They are Sustainable Development, emanating from the UN that says the wealthy west has used more then our fair share of fossil fuels and must STOP. ——Our parasite politicians are fully onboard with this and are prepared to impoverish us with expensive unreliable energy, adversely affecting our economy, our manufacturing base and our prosperity since standard of living is directly tied to the price and availability of energy. ——Anyone who listens to Miliband talk about “cheaper bills” from wind is seriously misinformed. But please do not take my word for it. The countries with the most wind turbines in Europe are Germany and Denmark and lo and behold their electricity prices are the highest.———————-As that old song says “There may be trouble ahead”
Only a fool predicts exponential growth. Compound interest may be exponential growth but interest rates change.
Without viable bulk storage, which may be centuries or millennia away or just impossible, energy sources that are not “always on” and cannot be tapped at will when needed seem really pointless to me. I can’t think of much else to say.
We have viable bulk storage – coal, oil and gas enough to last centuries, maybe millennia.
Indeed. You probably realise this but I was talking about storing energy from “renewable” (intermittent) sources like wind and solar.
The only thing that could save it is continuing generous subsidies awarded by virtue-signalling politicians.
Those subsidies can only come from a wealth producing economy which so far has been driven by coal, oil and gas. Unless the intent is to destroy value?
Well intent or not, the wealth being created will decline with ‘decarbonisation’ and money for those subsidies has to come from somewhere – taxpayers and consumers who, made poorer, will be able to afford less thereby reducing consumer demand and economic activity.
That is simple economics, and therefore quite incomprehensible to the political bird-brains in charge.
Exponential?
Oh FFS!
With apologies to any commentator who controlled themselves long enough to read further than the headline.
OK. I’ve managed to read the first paragraph before shouting at my screen again.
Yes, it certainly would – but not in a good way.
I just can’t take it seriously. Ask them “what are you going to do when the sun isn’t shining?” and see what they answer. The whole thing is so implausible.
You just get less exponential growth, it will take a little longer to reach infinity.
Lol
To infinity and beyond
The Economist understands what it wants to understand
You would think that The Economist of all publications would understand what exponential means. The key fact is that it rises at an ever increasing rate – towards infinity. That means an ever increasing use of raw materials and an ever increasing amount of power being used to manufacture them.
The whole idea of exponential growth over a sustained period is nonsense.
It is the notion of perpetual motion.
I’ve had more than one discussion with “renewable fanatics”. Many of them simply don’t realise that renewable electricity has to be stored for up to three months to bridge the gap between supply and demand. Others just believe in the fairy tale that “batteries are getting cheaper”.
Cheap or not, they still have to be charged… intermittency not only affects grid supply but battery charging too.
Leaving aside Britain would need a battery the size of France to store enough electricity even for just a few days.
Solar power = electricity. It is not a primary energy source. Solar arrays are energy collectors like wind turbines – neither are very efficient and are limited: neither can produce energy.
This is the salient point the nitwit Net Zeroids cannot understand – it’s physics.
Solar radiation is a primary energy source, but unlike fossil fuels it is not controllable.
Electricity is a secondary energy source.
When you have an essential secondary energy source entirely dependent on energy collectors entirely reliant on intermittent, variable, uncontrollable primary sources like solar and wind energy, that’s when things come unstuck. No Sun, no wind, no energy, no matter how many pv panels or wind turbines scattered hither and yon there are.
If wind and solar were practically, economically viable and more beneficial, we would have adopted them years ago by natural free market evolution
Simples.
By the by: the limitation due to silver applies more widely to the Net Zero fantasy with respect to copper and the practical amount of copper ore that can be produced to meet requirements within the time frame.
The standard supply/demand/price mechanism works. As demand exceeds supply prices will go up, making all present day calculations and estimates worthless.