Global American Capital Abandons the Climate Change Narrative

The “green” doomsayers have been trying to rekindle the world’s interest in their narrative lately, as they realize that the “climate crisis” is in crisis. This crisis manifests itself in various ways, we are collecting various phenomena of it.

Despite the mass propaganda, the climate hysteria and its practical consequence, the energy transition, are suffering from declining acceptance, because more and more people are noticing that the cost of electricity and heating is increasing, while efforts to limit global warming are ineffective since it is not man-made, and efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are being nullified by developments in India and China. Moreover, no one can scientifically formulate a forecast for global warming, since there is no direct correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth.

The ideology of man-made climate catastrophe caused by carbon dioxide is not only based on unscientific foundations, but is also an expression of the “occupation” of climate science by “green” lobbies, systemic parties, state officials and representatives of ecological capital. Ultimately, it serves to promote the decarbonization of society, promote “green” investments (renewable energy sources, RES) and ensure “green” investors huge profits from the state, as is done, for example, through EU regulations. The replacement of old, supposedly climate-damaging fossil technologies with “renewable energy sources” is also a huge economic incentive program. As such, it is also an expression of the crisis of capital utilization in capitalism, of the overaccumulation of capital that finds very few profitable investment opportunities. The ideologically motivated and politically forced investments in wind turbines, solar systems, storage systems, grids, house insulation, etc. come at exactly the right time. Of course, there are also applications that make sense, but the green transition as a whole is by no means logical, even if there were a climate problem.

Despite massive marketing by politics, the media and so-called “science”, the climate movement has failed to mobilize the masses, it has mainly mobilized only schoolchildren, university students and green lobbyists. The main reason for this is that the masses have to bear the negative consequences of the energy transition and the higher costs. The claims of alarmists that the moderate temperature increase observed over 170 years would have (only) catastrophic consequences are increasingly at odds with reality. The catastrophic trend exists almost exclusively in the media sector (rumors about “extreme weather events”), it is not recognizable in the real data. Although tens of trillions have been spent worldwide over more than three decades as part of the climate rescue and the conversion of the energy system, transport, etc. to carbon-free technologies, the global result is negligible. Instead, energy supplies have become more expensive and uncertain.

Climate projects have so far usually been linked to regulations that guarantee profits (usually for 20 years) and secure a privileged position in the market. In many countries in Europe, it is ensured that “green” electricity is fed into the grid as a priority and artificially excessive feed-in tariffs are paid to operators of wind and solar plants. Climate investments almost always receive direct or indirect subsidies. And most importantly, “green” investors (and their political sponsors) can present themselves as the saviors of the world. These enormous advantages, which no other part of capital, except perhaps the arms industry, can use for itself, were ultimately the reason why not only small investors, but also big banking and finance capital willingly played along. In addition to the purely financial commitment, there has also been massive support (and bribery) for political, media and “scientific” figures, while billions have been paid through thousands of NGOs, foundations, associations and institutes to finance climate ideology and green activists. These facts also show that the claim by some that big business is behind “climate deniers” is not true, as the biggest players, e.g. US tech billionaires, have supported the climate alarmist scene.

In this light, one wonders what could be the reason why the biggest players in the financial sector have recently said goodbye to their “green” commitment. In recent weeks, a surprising shift has taken place in the financial world, as always largely unnoticed by the systemic scene. At the end of December, two of the largest US banks, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, had withdrawn from the so-called “Net Zero Banking Alliance” (NZBA). The NZBA was established by the UN in 2021 as a cartel of financial institutions to support the political energy transition. The reason for this project was the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, with which the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson wanted to shine as the savior of the climate. In April 2021, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was established. Its website states that it “brings together leading financial institutions and other financial services players who have individually chosen to support the goals of mobilizing capital and removing barriers to companies going carbon-free.”

Even more surprising was the withdrawal of several large financial institutions from these projects. In addition to Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, Citibank and Bank of America also left the NZBA at the end of December. Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan followed in early January. These six institutions represent more than 25% of the US banking sector. Meanwhile, the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, has also withdrawn from the “green cartel.” The second of the world’s three major fund managers, Vanguard, already took this step in 2022. Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) also announced its withdrawal from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors on Greening the Financial System (NGFS).

The question is why did these major players in the global financial sphere change course?

1. One reason is certainly Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. Trump is known for rejecting the climate campaign. Accordingly, on the day he took office, he announced the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. Trump supports the strengthening of the position of American capital in the energy markets and relies mainly on fossil and nuclear energy. The fact that the US has not only become self-sufficient in terms of energy supply in recent years, but has even become an exporter plays an important role. This is mainly due to the process of extracting natural gas and oil through hydrofracking. In addition, the interruption of the supply of Russian oil and gas to Europe after the sanctions against Russia is significant, because this is how the US now sells expensive fracking gas, sharply increasing Europe’s dependence on the US.

2. Another and more important reason, however, is that the green transition policy has failed. In relation to the huge expenditure, it has significantly increased energy costs and made the electricity system less secure. As we can observe in Europe and also in Greece, high energy costs not only lead to increased inflation, but also slow down economic dynamics. The green transition may have been lucrative for some sections of capital, but it has clearly had negative effects on the economy as a whole. Although Trump is happy when large companies leave the EU as a location and go to the US or invest there, the recession in Europe is also putting pressure on the global economy. This is one of the reasons why Trump insists that the armaments spending of NATO partners must increase, tanks instead of cars, cannons instead of butter.

3. A third reason is that investments in the green transition often do not pay off despite subsidies and favorable regulations for investors. This is mainly due to scientific and technical reasons. Contrary to the claims of the “green” scenario, wind turbines and solar systems are much more expensive and inefficient than conventional power plants, regardless of their type. This is because wind and sun contain much less energy per area than coal, oil or even nuclear fuels, and therefore the technical effort to convert energy is higher. In addition, there is the generally shorter operating time of wind and solar plants and their fluctuating supply, which makes them generally unsuitable for the electricity system. These technical characteristics force the use of many complex and expensive measures to make “renewable energy” usable on a massive scale: Grid expansion, storage expansion, backup power plants, electricity trading, etc. For this reason alone, RES cannot be cheaper than traditional energy technologies, unless creative arithmetic is used by the proponents of the climate change narrative, in which many cost factors are simply excluded.

Such “creative calculations”, combined with embellished data on wind volume or sunshine hours, have encouraged many investors, including many utilities, to invest in renewable energy. Many renewable energy investments only pay off anyway because a) they are subsidized and b) electricity prices have essentially skyrocketed due to the green transition. However, wind and solar farms often turn out to be negative businesses, especially after the EU subsidy ends after 20 years. These problems probably play a significant role in the fact that the big names in the financial market have withdrawn from their commitments to the green transition.

It is difficult to assess today what the exit of the big financial players from the climate cartel means. In any case, it is not true that the climate circus no longer has supporters among the ranks of financial capital. However, it is likely that big financial capital will rely more on fossil fuels. In this context, nuclear energy will probably play a larger role again. What is certain is that the shift of the big American banks and funds will mean the end of the climate propaganda campaign, i.e. the flow of capital to the systemic media and the hysterical presentation in the news of weather phenomena as catastrophic “climate change”.

  • In conclusion, let us remind the remaining “green” lobbyists and fellow travelers what weather and climate are.
  • Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time in a specific place. Weather has a direct impact on the condition of people and animals. Weather data can be measured and recorded. There is no average weather and no average global weather.
  • On the other hand, climate is a statistical view of past weather data.
  • Statistics (climate) never affect the data (weather).
  • Since weather is only determined locally, there is no average “average climate” and certainly no “global climate”.
  • Incidentally, there is no such thing as “climate science”, the self-appointed climate scientists come from different fields of science.
  • The mention of terms like “climate protection” and “climate rescue” is nonsense, since climate is a statistical view of the data, i.e. what exactly do climate protectors want to save or preserve?

Climate change or variation is an undeniable fact, but this change is not due to human intervention.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *