Just three of the world's 10 biggest banks agreed to join a coalition of 130 global financial firms which have agreed to reshape their business to align with international efforts to address climate change and other environmental issues according to Bloomberg.
Citigroup, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China joined the United Nations' Principles for Responsible Banking pledge, which now represents $47 trillion in assets - or 1/3 of the global banking industry according to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres during a Sunday launch event.
Other signers include "European banks BNP Paribas SA, Barclays Plc and UBS Group AG," which have agreed to map out and publish plans by 2023 governing their targets for sustainability.
Guterres implored banks to increase financing for green-growth businesses, and to "Invest in climate action and divest from fossil fuels and pollution in general."
Read the entire article
DAILY BUSINESS REPORT - Financial Updates, International Markets and Business News
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
September 24, 2019
October 15, 2018
The Inevitable De-Industrialization Of Europe
EU ministers agreed to binding cuts in CO2 emissions of 35% by 2030. The German auto industry won't be able to deliver.
The Telegraph reports Berlin court orders German capital to ban most diesel vehicles on 11 major roads to counter pollution.
Hamburg was first in May. Stuttgart, home of Mercedes and Porsche, was second in July.
A diesel ban in Frankfurt came third.
Only older cars that do not meet emission standards are banned, but diesel is now toxic. No one wants to buy diesel.
Merkel Can No Longer Protect Car Makers
Adding to the woes, Merkel has lost control. She is no longer able to protect German industry.
The European Parliament just voted to cut CO2 emissions by 40%. The European ministers voted for a 35% reduction. The latter is binding.
Car sales dropped sharply in September.
Eurointelligence on Autos and German Industry
Read the entire article
The Telegraph reports Berlin court orders German capital to ban most diesel vehicles on 11 major roads to counter pollution.
Hamburg was first in May. Stuttgart, home of Mercedes and Porsche, was second in July.
A diesel ban in Frankfurt came third.
Only older cars that do not meet emission standards are banned, but diesel is now toxic. No one wants to buy diesel.
Merkel Can No Longer Protect Car Makers
Adding to the woes, Merkel has lost control. She is no longer able to protect German industry.
The European Parliament just voted to cut CO2 emissions by 40%. The European ministers voted for a 35% reduction. The latter is binding.
Car sales dropped sharply in September.
Eurointelligence on Autos and German Industry
Read the entire article
July 25, 2018
The Regulation That Could Push Oil To $200
Oil prices could spike as high as $200 per barrel over the next 18 months, which would cause an “economic crash of horrible proportions,” according to a new report.
A research paper from economist and oil market watcher Philip K. Verleger predicts there could be a shortage of low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2020 as a result of regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aimed at cutting sulfur emissions. The regulations, due to take effect at the start of 2020, lowers the allowed concentration of sulfur in maritime fuels from 3.5 percent to just 0.5 percent.
Those rules have already sparked a scramble for low-sulfur options. But the current global refining capacity may not be able to churn out enough low-sulfur fuels to allow a smooth transition from high-sulfur fuels by the world’s shipping fleet.
The shipping industry accounts for about 5 percent of total global oil demand, and most ships burn heavy fuel oil that is high in sulfur. Switching over 5 percent of total demand to low-sulfur diesel and gasoil – a distillate similar to diesel – is a massive shift.
Ship-owners will have a few options: install expensive scrubbers to remove sulfur, switch to low-sulfur fuels such as diesel or gasoil, or switch over to LNG. Scrubbers and LNG are generally thought to be the most expensive options, requiring capital outlays to overhaul entire fleets.
Read the entire article
A research paper from economist and oil market watcher Philip K. Verleger predicts there could be a shortage of low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2020 as a result of regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aimed at cutting sulfur emissions. The regulations, due to take effect at the start of 2020, lowers the allowed concentration of sulfur in maritime fuels from 3.5 percent to just 0.5 percent.
Those rules have already sparked a scramble for low-sulfur options. But the current global refining capacity may not be able to churn out enough low-sulfur fuels to allow a smooth transition from high-sulfur fuels by the world’s shipping fleet.
The shipping industry accounts for about 5 percent of total global oil demand, and most ships burn heavy fuel oil that is high in sulfur. Switching over 5 percent of total demand to low-sulfur diesel and gasoil – a distillate similar to diesel – is a massive shift.
Ship-owners will have a few options: install expensive scrubbers to remove sulfur, switch to low-sulfur fuels such as diesel or gasoil, or switch over to LNG. Scrubbers and LNG are generally thought to be the most expensive options, requiring capital outlays to overhaul entire fleets.
Read the entire article
September 27, 2017
California Mulls Combustion-Engine Car Ban: "You Could Stop All Sales By 2030"
California, the state which single-handedly turned Elon Musk into the billionaire that he is today by forcing taxpayers to subsidize his unprofitable electric vehicle scam via "Zero Emission Vehicle" credits, is now considering a full ban of combustion-engine cars by as early as 2030. The potential ban was discussed by Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board, the same folks who decided to regulate cow farts last year, who told Bloomberg that Governor Jerry Brown has expressed interest in a ban.
Governor Jerry Brown has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. Brown, one of the most outspoken elected official in the U.S. about the need for policies to combat climate change, would be replicating similar moves by China, France and the U.K.
“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned phase-out of fossil-fuel vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”
California has set a goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Rising emissions from on-road transportation has undercut the state’s efforts to reduce pollution, a San Francisco-based non-profit said last month.
“To reach the ambitious levels of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we have to pretty much replace all combustion with some form of renewable energy by 2040 or 2050," Nichols said. “We’re looking at that as a method of moving this discussion forward.”
Read the entire article
Governor Jerry Brown has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. Brown, one of the most outspoken elected official in the U.S. about the need for policies to combat climate change, would be replicating similar moves by China, France and the U.K.
“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned phase-out of fossil-fuel vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”
California has set a goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Rising emissions from on-road transportation has undercut the state’s efforts to reduce pollution, a San Francisco-based non-profit said last month.
“To reach the ambitious levels of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we have to pretty much replace all combustion with some form of renewable energy by 2040 or 2050," Nichols said. “We’re looking at that as a method of moving this discussion forward.”
Read the entire article
February 1, 2017
Destroying The "Wind & Solar Will Save Us" Delusion
The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” story is based on a long list of misunderstandings and apples to oranges comparisons. Somehow, people seem to believe that our economy of 7.5 billion people can get along with a very short list of energy supplies. This short list will not include fossil fuels. Some would exclude nuclear, as well. Without these energy types, we find ourselves with a short list of types of energy — what BP calls Hydroelectric, Geobiomass (geothermal, wood, wood waste, and other miscellaneous types; also liquid fuels from plants), Wind, and Solar.
Unfortunately, a transition to such a short list of fuels can’t really work. These are a few of the problems we encounter:
Wind and solar are making extremely slow progress in helping the world move away from fossil fuel dependence.
In 2015, fossil fuels accounted for 86% of the world’s energy consumption, and nuclear added another 4%, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Thus, the world’s “preferred fuels” made up only 10% of the total. Wind and solar together accounted for a little less than 2% of world energy consumption.
Our progress in getting away from fossil fuels has not been very fast, either. Going back to 1985, fossil fuels made up 89% of the total, and wind and solar were both insignificant. As indicated above, fossil fuels today comprise 86% of total energy consumption. Thus, in 30 years, we have managed to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 3% (=89% – 86%). Growth in wind and solar contributed 2% of this 3% reduction. At the rate of a 3% reduction every 30 years (or 1% reduction every ten years), it will take 860 years, or until the year 2877 to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. And the “improvement” made to date was made with huge subsidies for wind and solar.
Read the entire article
Unfortunately, a transition to such a short list of fuels can’t really work. These are a few of the problems we encounter:
Wind and solar are making extremely slow progress in helping the world move away from fossil fuel dependence.
In 2015, fossil fuels accounted for 86% of the world’s energy consumption, and nuclear added another 4%, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Thus, the world’s “preferred fuels” made up only 10% of the total. Wind and solar together accounted for a little less than 2% of world energy consumption.
Our progress in getting away from fossil fuels has not been very fast, either. Going back to 1985, fossil fuels made up 89% of the total, and wind and solar were both insignificant. As indicated above, fossil fuels today comprise 86% of total energy consumption. Thus, in 30 years, we have managed to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 3% (=89% – 86%). Growth in wind and solar contributed 2% of this 3% reduction. At the rate of a 3% reduction every 30 years (or 1% reduction every ten years), it will take 860 years, or until the year 2877 to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. And the “improvement” made to date was made with huge subsidies for wind and solar.
Read the entire article
March 24, 2016
Peak Hypocrisy: Rockefeller Fund Divests Fossil Fuels, Says Exxon Is "Morally Reprehensible"
The winner of today's "peak irony", or rather hypocrisy, award is easy: it goes to the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity which exists only thanks to John D. Rockefeller's creation of the Standard Oil carbon-spewing behemoth (a predecessor to today's ExxonMobil) which over the past century has created billions in profits for the Rockefeller family and billions in tons of CO2 emissions, "proudly announcing" this morning that it intends to sell all fossil fuel exposure, and that it would "eliminate holdings" of ExxonMobil because the oil company associated with the family fortune has "worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change."
The U.S.-based charity will also divest its coal and Canadian oil sands holdings.
This striking move is the result of the Fund's "green" metamorphosis. According to the charity, given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons."
Oh, now they tell us.
In response to the divestment movement, many oil industry leaders have argued that millions of people in the developing world would be condemned to darkness and poverty if society halted the burning of fossil fuels anytime in the next several decades, before there is an ample supply of cleaner energy sources. And considering the price of oil is so cheap currently that the research and development of so-called alternative, or clean sources of energy is completely uneconomical, it means that the kind, liberal folks over at the Rockefeller foundation would rather see Africa in the dark than suffer the immoral indignity of even a few more grams of CO2 emissions.
Today's move follows the launch last November by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of an investigation into whether Exxon misled the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change. At the time, the company said it has included information about the business risk of climate change for many years in its quarterly filings, corporate citizenship report and in other reports to shareholders.
Read the entire article
The U.S.-based charity will also divest its coal and Canadian oil sands holdings.
This striking move is the result of the Fund's "green" metamorphosis. According to the charity, given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons."
Oh, now they tell us.
In response to the divestment movement, many oil industry leaders have argued that millions of people in the developing world would be condemned to darkness and poverty if society halted the burning of fossil fuels anytime in the next several decades, before there is an ample supply of cleaner energy sources. And considering the price of oil is so cheap currently that the research and development of so-called alternative, or clean sources of energy is completely uneconomical, it means that the kind, liberal folks over at the Rockefeller foundation would rather see Africa in the dark than suffer the immoral indignity of even a few more grams of CO2 emissions.
Today's move follows the launch last November by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of an investigation into whether Exxon misled the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change. At the time, the company said it has included information about the business risk of climate change for many years in its quarterly filings, corporate citizenship report and in other reports to shareholders.
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)