• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Geopolitics of it all

Why are we struggling?

Piss-ups and breweries come to mind.

4. Canada

Fourth on the list is Canada. This vast country has an estimated $33.2 trillion worth of natural resources.2 It has the third-largest oil deposits after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The commodities that the country owns include industrial minerals, such as gypsum, limestone, rock salt, and potash, as well as energy minerals, such as coal and uranium.

Metals in Canada include copper, lead, nickel, and zinc, and precious metals like gold, platinum, and silver.12 Canada is a leading producer of natural gas.13

40,000,000 people
0.5% of the world's total

Our banks hold some $6 trillion worth of liquid assets

That is backed by

$33.2 trillion worth of proven resources
20% of the world's fresh water.
6.7% of the world's land.
*2% of the world's arable land.

and a labour force of over 22,000,000.

*11% of the world's land is arable.
Canada claims 6.7% of the world's land and 4% of that is arable.

10 Countries With the Most Natural Resources​


Updated March 14, 2023
Reviewed by

Natural resources are commodities, the raw inputs used to make everything we use, from intermediate goods to finished products. These resources are found in the earth among reserves yet to be extracted.

Renewable resources are those with supply not diminished by use, including solar power, wind power and hydroelectric energy. Nonrenewable resources like fossil fuels and mined metals have finite reserves depleted by extraction.

Natural resources are found throughout the world, though the deposits tend to clump as a result of geological processes.

Here are the 10 countries with the most valuable natural resource reserves by total estimated value as of 2021, according to Statista.


  • Natural resources are valuable because they can be extracted to produce goods and services.
  • Natural resources occur naturally in the world and exist independently from humans.
  • Natural resources can be renewable and finite.
  • Mining is a major industry for many of the countries on the list.
  • Likewise, oil and gas make up a big portion of these countries' natural resources.

U.S. Natural Resources​

The United States has the world's largest proven coal reserves. It is also rich in copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, rare earth elements, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber, and arable land.1

1. Russia

Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate.2 This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals. Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment produced a much lower estimate of $910 billion in 2019.3

Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021.5

Russia was the world's third-largest crude oil producer at 12% of global supply in 2020. Russsia's proved oil reserves were the world's sixth largest at an estimated 107.8 billion barrels.6

In industrial diamonds, the country accounted for a third of 2021 global production and 61% of the commodity's reserves.7

2. United States

The estimated value of natural resources in the U. S. is $45 trillion, almost 90% of which are timber and coal. In fact, the U.S. is the leading producer of coal.2 As of 2020, it had the largest proven coal reserves in the world.8

Other resources include substantial copper, gold, oil, and natural gas deposits. Also making the list are lead, molybdenum, phosphates, rare earth elements, uranium, bauxite, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber, and arable land.9

3. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is a small country in the Middle East and is slightly larger than Mexico. Saudi Arabia has $34.4 trillion worth of natural resources—notably oil.2 The nation has been a leading exporter ever since oil was discovered in 1938.

With 15% of the world's reserves as of 2020, the country's economy depends heavily on its oil exports. However, natural gas capacity and processing has risen since 2015 while that for oil has decreased.10 Saudi Arabia's other natural resources include copper, feldspar, phosphate, silver, sulfur, tungsten, and zinc.11

4. Canada

Fourth on the list is Canada. This vast country has an estimated $33.2 trillion worth of natural resources.2 It has the third-largest oil deposits after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The commodities that the country owns include industrial minerals, such as gypsum, limestone, rock salt, and potash, as well as energy minerals, such as coal and uranium.

Metals in Canada include copper, lead, nickel, and zinc, and precious metals like gold, platinum, and silver.12 Canada is a leading producer of natural gas.13

5. Iran​

Iran's natural resources are worth an estimated $27.3 trillion.2 In 2020, this country was the fifth-largest crude oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It was the world's third-largest natural gas producer in 2019.14 Other natural resources include coal, chromium, copper, iron ore, lead, manganese, zinc, and sulfur.15 Arable land, pistachios, saffron, and fruits also contribute to the estimated value.16

There is a natural relationship between the economy and the world's natural resources—as the global economy grows, demand for commodities continues to rise.

6. China​

China has natural resources estimated to be worth $23 trillion.2 Ninety percent of China's resources are coal and rare earth metals. Timber is another major natural resource found in the country, as is arable land.

Also, due to its natural resource of water, it has the world's greatest hydropower potential.17 Other resources that China possesses include rice, oil and natural gas, and immense amounts of metals such as gold and aluminum and minerals.18

7. Brazil​

Brazil has natural resources worth $21.8 trillion. including gold, iron, oil, and uranium.2 In 2019, Brazil was the eighth-largest oil producer in the world.19 A 2018 estimate found that 61.9% of its land was forested and 23.5% was permanent pasture.20

Its mining industry focuses on bauxite, platinum, copper, gold, iron, and tin. Timber is also a valuable natural resource. Brazil has an immense installed capacity of hydroelectric power production.21

8. Australia​

Australia has an estimated $19.9 trillion in natural resources that include coal, timber, copper, iron ore, gold, and uranium.2 Australia, which is about 80% the size of the United States, is a large producer of oil and liquified natural gas. Its proved oil reserves measured 2.4 billion barrels at the end of 2021.22

The country is also the largest net exporter of coal, with 29% of global coal exports. Its other natural resources include alumina, iron ore, copper, tin, gold, silver, uranium, nickel, tungsten, rare earth elements, mineral sands, lead, zinc, and diamonds.23

9. Iraq​

Iraq possesses $15.9 trillion in natural resources.2 Its desert terrain holds petroleum, natural gas, phosphates, sulfur. Iraq is the second-largest crude oil producer in OPEC. It ranks as the world’s fifth-largest holder of proved crude oil reserves and it depends on the export of crude oil for a major amount of its revenues.24

10. Venezuela​

This South American country has natural resources estimated at $14.3 trillion. They include iron, natural gas, and oil.2 As of 2019, it was the fourth-largest oil producing member of OPEC. In 2020, it had the largest proved oil reserves on the globe. It also has the tenth-largest reserves of natural gas.25 Other natural resources include iron ore, gold, bauxite, hydropower, and diamonds.26


Will Germany be the first to ditch its net zero commitments?​

  • 18 September 2023, 1:58pm
How did Europe’s most ambitious nation on net zero turn into a laggard? Reality, that’s what

Things are not going well in Germany’s bid to reach net zero by 2045, five years earlier even than Britain’s own unrealistic target. For months, the German government has been trying to devise a way to save its heavy industry from high energy prices which are sending production fleeing to Asia. Just last year, chemicals giant BASF announced that it would invest in a new £10 billion plant in China rather than Europe, thanks to the cost of energy.
Now, the government seems to have found a way. It is going to raid its £200 billion climate transition fund, which was supposed to invest in green technology. The fund was also meant to compensate householders who have been groaning under the expense of policies such as next year’s proposed ban on new gas boilers.

Instead, some of the money will be going towards subsidising cheaper energy for heavy users (although householders may end up paying more). Needless to say, some of the subsidies will be disappearing into the pockets of the owners of coal-fired power stations – given that some of these have had to be fired up again to cope with the disappearance of Russian gas.

At the same time, Germany is pushing back against EU proposals for new reporting requirements on climate and other environmental issues. It wants to change the rules so that they affect only companies employing more than 500 people, rather than 250. The German car industry has already succeeded in watering down an EU ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2035 – internal combustion engines will still be allowed if they are capable of being run on synthetic ‘e-fuels’ manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Given that you can make synthetic fuels to any recipe you like, this effectively means that the car industry will be able to continue making internal combustion engines pretty much as now.

So how did Europe’s most ambitious nation on net zero turn into a laggard (without so far actually ditching the increasingly unreachable 2045 target)? Reality, that’s what.

For years, Germany pursued a policy of relying on cheap Russian gas while hoping that some solution to the problem of intermittent renewables would magically appear. This is a policy which it continued even as Putin lined up his tanks on Ukraine’s borders – three nuclear power stations were closed prematurely on New Year’s Eve 2021.

Now, the costs are becoming clearer. Wind and solar are not going to deliver sufficient energy that is cheap and reliable enough to replace all fossil fuels – at least not without some as-yet unclear technology to allow the affordable storage of vast quantities of energy. The inevitable result of trying to plough on with net zero will be yet more sections of German industry disappearing off to South Asia, which is unencumbered by legally-binding targets.

The question is, which country will become the first to rat on its net zero target, to find some of putting it off, watering it down – or changing the definition of what counts? There must be a lot of money on it being Germany, although it may still take a few years before any government feels brave enough to admit the inevitable.


Ross Clark

More on the Progressive Mr. Carney.

He was a ‘global superstar’. He was the smartest finance official of his generation. He would bring global contacts and experience. When Mark Carney was appointed as the first foreigner to run the Bank of England he was meant to be a refreshing, technocratic figure who would blow some of the cobwebs off the institution. And yet, with his attack on Liz Truss for creating ‘Argentina on the Channel’, Carney has become a disgrace to the Bank.

No former governor should ever be so openly partisan. Indeed, if anyone imposed Argentinian-style monetary policies it was possibly Carney himself.

It is unheard of for a former governor of the Bank of England to be so openly partisan

There was no mistaking the ferocity of the attack. The day before Liz Truss launched a defence of her premiership, Carney used the podium of the Global Progress Action Summit – hardly a neutral sounding event – to criticise her policies. He accused her administration of creating ‘Argentina on the Channel’, and took a pop at Brexit supporters for the ‘misguided view’ that cutting taxes and government spending leads to economic growth. Carney then accused them of wanting to ‘tear down the future’.

Carney has now retired from the Bank and he is, of course, entitled to his view. There are, however, two problems with his intervention. The first is that it is unheard of for a former governor to be so openly partisan. Predecessors such as Mervyn King or Eddie George may have hinted at their views, but they never targeted an active political leader so directly. If that continues, it will be hard for the Bank to claim it is ‘independent’ for much longer. It would surely be better for Carney to maintain a dignified silence on British politics.

The second problem is this. During his time in office, Carney took interest rates down to the lowest in three centuries, printed money on a vast scale, and allowed regulation to become so hopeless that pension funds could not survive a modest rise in gilt yields. If anyone turned the UK into ‘Argentina on the Channel’ it was more likely the governor over eight years than the former PM over 40 days.

Carney was a poor leader of the Bank. But in the years since, he has become a disgrace to the institution he once led – and with his attacks on British politicians he is simply embarrassing himself.

“The risk here for those who care about reaching net zero, as I do, is simple, if we continue down this path we risk losing the consent of the British people... meaning we might never achieve our goal.

Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Perchance the Masters of the Universe are starting to clue in. Rishi and Starmer, his opposition leader, are both backpedalling fast on the Green Agenda and Wokeism. The language coming out of Montreal seemed to also reflect concern for "the consent of the governed".

And besides, there are other things for people to rally around now. There is no need to invent causes for Seinfeld audiences. People are regrouping in a hurry.

Rishi Sunak rules out meat or flight taxes​

Rishi Sunak confirms he has scrapped proposals for seven different bins in homes, as well as ruling out taxes on meat or flying.
“Nor will we ban new oil and gas in the North Sea,” Mr Sunak adds.
“We will still meet our international commitments and hit net zero by 2050.”

'Investors should have absolute confidence that we’re getting on with the job'​

Rishi Sunak confirms “comprehensive” new reforms for net zero will be brought forward by Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, and Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary.
“We’ll end the first come first served approach to grid connections... and make sure those ready first will connect first,” he tells reporters.
“Investors should have absolute confidence that we’re getting on with the job.”

'Far more time' to transition to heat pumps, confirms Rishi Sunak​

Rishi Sunak says people will be given “far more time” to make the transition to heat pumps, with a ban on new oil and gas boiler sales delayed to 2035.
“We’ll never force anyone to rip out their existing heat pump... You’ll only have to make the switch when you’re replacing your boiler anyway, and even then, not until 2035.”
Mr Sunak introduces a new exemption for households, and increases the boiler upgrade scheme from £5,000 to £7,500 with “no strings attached”.

Breaking: Petrol and diesel car ban delayed​

Rishi Sunak confirms a delay to the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars and vans to 2035, from 2030.
They will also be able to be bought and sold second-hand from that year, he confirms.
“At least for now, it should be you that makes that choice, not the Government forcing you to do it,” Mr Sunak says.

Rishi Sunak: Current net zero approach has 'unacceptable costs'​

Rishi Sunak says the Conservatives “seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-working British families”.
“Why am I confident in saying that? Because over the last decade so far, we’ve massively overdelivered on every one of our carbon budgets, despite regular predictions we’d miss them.”
He calls for a more “realistic, pragmatic and proportionate approach” to meeting net zero.
“Now I’m not saying there will be no hard choices and nor am I abandoning any of our targets and commitments. I am unequivocal that we will meet our international agreements including the critical promises in Paris and Glasgow to limit global warming to 1.5 per cent. I’m proud that our country leads the world on net zero with the most ambitious 2030 target of any economy.”

'Both extremes are wrong' on net zero, says Rishi Sunak​

Rishi Sunak says it cannot be right to “interfere” with green policies “without an informed debate” among the general public.
Mr Sunak notes Chinese emissions have risen while there has been little if any change to levels in the United States.
“The risk here for those who care about reaching net zero, as I do, is simple, if we continue down this path we risk losing the consent of the British people... meaning we might never achieve our goal.
“That’s why we have to do things differently. We need sensible green leadership. It won’t be easy and it will require a wholly new kind of politics. A politics that is transparent and the space for a better, more honest debate about how we secure the country’s long-term interests.”
The Prime Minister adds the net zero debate is stuck between the “extremes” of “those who want to abandon net zero altogether” and “others who argue with an ideological zeal we must move even faster and go even further, no matter the cost or disruption to people’s lives and regardless of how much quicker we’re already moving than any other country”.
“Both extremes are wrong. Both fail to reckon with the reality of the situation... The test should be do we have the fairest credible path to reach net zero by 2050, in a way that brings people with us?”

@Kirkhill, Canada will no doubt be the holdout post-nation state to release its grip on NetZero Now…
Carney now intrigues me....

Chairman of Brookfield Corporation.

Brookfield Corporation is a Canadian multinational company that is one of the world's largest alternative investment management companies, with over US$725 billion of assets under management in 2022. It focuses on direct control investments in real estate, renewable power, infrastructure, credit and private equity.[3] The company invests in distressed securities through Oaktree Capital, which it bought in 2019. Brookfield's headquarters are in Toronto. It also has corporate offices in New York City, London, São Paulo, Mumbai, Shanghai, Dubai, and Sydney.[4][5]

Headquarters at Brookfield Place
Traded as
IndustryFinancial services
Founded1899; 124 years ago
HeadquartersBrookfield Place,
Toronto, Ontario
Area servedWorldwide
Key people
ServicesAsset Management
CA$92.8 billion (2022)
Net income
CA$5.19 billion (2022)
CA$800 billion (2022)
Total assets
CA$441 billion (2022)
Total equity
CA$142 billion (2022)
Number of employeesc. 200,000 (December 2022)
Footnotes / references

Alternative investments...

An alternative investment, also known as an alternative asset or alternative investment fund (AIF),[1] is an investment in any asset class excluding stocks, bonds, and cash.[2] The term is a relatively loose one and includes tangible assets such as precious metals,[3] collectibles (art,[4] wine, antiques, vintage cars, coins, musical instruments, or stamps[5]) and some financial assets such as real estate, commodities, private equity, distressed securities, hedge funds, exchange funds, carbon credits,[6] venture capital, film production,[7] financial derivatives, cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens, and Tax Receivable Agreements.[8] Investments in real estate, forestry and shipping are also often termed "alternative" despite the ancient use of such real assets to enhance and preserve wealth.[9] Alternative investments are to be contrasted with traditional investments.

How does one calculate the tax due on bottle of ancient wine? What is the value managed by the sommelier?
New headlines from the Telegraph.

Keep in mind it is the organ of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party has two principal factions. The Investors and the Proles. Labour has abandoned the Proles. Boris brought them on side. The Investors never forgave him.

Tory Investor take on the announcement. Windfarms are a great way to transfer taxes to the private sector.

Trudeau's progressive Labour buddy, Keith Starmer, friend of Macron sides with the Investors over the Proles.

Labour pledges to reverse Sunak's delay to petrol and diesel car ban

  • PM says families will no longer pay ‘unacceptable costs’
  • Sunak: 'Absolutely wrong to say we are watering

But, just as the Tories are split between Investors and Proles Labour is split three ways between Fabian Investors, Marxist Unions and their own faction of the Proles.

Labour could also tear itself apart over net zero​

We must not let political partisanship stand in the way of taking a more pragmatic approach to decarbonisation

Successful opposition parties must also put on a united front. Yet in July, cracks began to appear after a shock defeat in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.

Having been denied a significant victory by Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion, Starmer began to take a more pragmatic approach. He blamed the Mayor of London’s unpopular policy for the Party’s failure, and called for a rethink.

Will we see the same trajectory being followed in response to the Prime Minister’s statement that key Net Zero plans could be shelved or delayed? In a statement on Tuesday night, Rishi Sunak said: “For too many years politicians in governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs. Instead they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.”

The home secretary, Suella Braverman was even more direct, stating that the government will not “save the planet by bankrupting the British people”.

Both are right, though it has become unfashionable to say so. Politicians have conspired over the years to pretend to their electors that Net Zero can be achieved via an entirely pain-free process, with no compromises on income, employment or standards of living. Too many politicians were too unwilling to give voters the painful, uncamouflaged truth.

Will Sunak’s shift on Net Zero result in a miraculous recovery for the Tories in the polls? It’s unlikely. But there are signs that Labour is rattled by the Prime Minister’s decision to delay certain green targets.

Until recently, there has been a rock-solid consensus among Britain’s political elites over the best approach to our low-carbon transition. Yet yesterday, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones, when asked whether Labour remained committed to the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, replied: “It really depends how much damage he does to the ability of businesses to prepare.”

Perhaps Labour focus groups have revealed that target voters aren’t quite as convinced of the need for hair shirt policies so long as the real global culprits for greenhouse emissions – the United States, China and India – are making few such sacrifices.

The author of the last article was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet. It is probably no too much to say that he was a key member of the British political elite that was selling this line. And he was, perhaps still is, a Blairite. Perhaps even progressives have their limits.

PS - Phil Hammond, Theresa May's Chancellor was caught on a conference call telling the titans of the CBI, international CEOs represented by the Conference of British Industry, that Brexit could be reversed. That is the Investor constituency, the City of London, Threadneedle Street, Wall Street - the Masters of the Universe shifting the gaze of the public from Balance Sheets to ESG reports.

16 January 2019

24 July 2019

Theresa May replaced by Boris Johnson. Peculiarly she retained her Maidenhead.

12 December 2019

Boris delivers the Proles of the Red Wall (Labour supporters, nationalists one and all) to the Tories with the promise of delivering Brexit. The Boris Tories had the largest majority since Margaret Thatcher in 1987 surpassing the likes of William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith, David Cameron and Theresa May, most of whom supported the Investors and Remain.

31 January 2020

Boris delivered on Brexit

6 September 2022

Boris turfed

25 October 2022

Liz Truss, the Proles' chosen successor to Boris was also turfed after the Investors undermined her the day after her Chancellor presented her budget plan on 23 September. The UKP crashed on 26 September. The Investors Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, replaced her Chancellor on 14 September. The Investor's Chancellor is still in place. That is a bit unusual. Usually the Prime Minister gets to choose the Chancellor.

On 25 October 22, the Investor's Chancellor was given a new Prime Minister.
Last edited:
@Kirkhill, Canada will no doubt be the holdout post-nation state to release its grip on NetZero Now…

Apparently the EU has been advancing to the rear faster than Britain....

Britain has finally joined the net sensibles​

The Prime Minister’s modest tweaks are a welcome indication that the green orthodoxy is gradually crumbling
MATTHEW LYNN20 September 2023 • 1:26pm

You might still be able to buy a petrol car for a few more years. You won’t have to rip out your old boiler right away. And extra taxes on your next summer holiday might be postponed, while that fiddly recycling scheme that required countless different bins could be scrapped.
No doubt his critics will try to portray the Prime Minister’s modest watering down of green commitments as turning the UK into a climate-change denying pariah. In reality, the UK is just switching from “net zero” extremism to “net zero” sense, joining many other developed countries in recognising that carbon emissions can’t be eliminated right away and all we will do is bankrupt ourselves by trying. There is just one problem, of course. We still have a lot further to go.
To listen to some of the reaction to the PM’s leaked announcement on climate change you might think he was sending the British army into the rainforest with chainsaws or re-opening the Kent and Durham coalmines. As it happens, Rishi Sunak is simply proposing some modest tweaks. The completely unrealistic target of banning the sale of petrol cars by 2030 will be pushed back by five years, bringing us into line with most of Europe. The phasing out of gas boilers will be postponed. And there will be no new taxes on flying, at least for now. The posturing that demanded the UK was the world leader on combating climate change, even though we account for only one percent of global emissions, and our stagnant economy can barely afford it, will be scrapped. Instead, we will more modestly adopt global standards.
That is long overdue. The “net sensibles”, as they might be termed, are in the ascendancy across Europe. France’s President Macon had called for a “regulatory pause” on climate change, arguing that it should not damage competitiveness. Italy’s PM Georgia Meloni argued in March that “we cannot help the environment by destroying our industries” while Belgium’s PM Alexander de Croo in May argued climate change legislation should not overwhelm companies, arguing that Europe should “not try to do everything at the same time”.
In a move that you might think would please the kind of hardcore Remainers who also are typically the most extreme advocates of green policies, the UK is simply aligning itself with the EU. It is hard to see anything very controversial about that. The alternative was to simply press on with an insane bid for world leadership, while making life tougher and tougher for families and businesses.
The trouble is, there is still a long way to go. For example, we could start fracking so that we could secure our domestic energy supplies while we transition to green alternatives, following the lead of Canada’s Justin Trudeau, hardly a right-wing populist. We could allow new oil fields to be developed at the same time as developing wind and solar power, following the lead of President Joe Biden, hardly a climate-change denier. Or we could explore the use of synthetic e-fuels as an alternative to electric cars, as the Social Democrat-Green coalition in Germany is insisting that it should.
The list goes on and on. The British political establishment has failed to notice that under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, cheered on by the likes of Labour’s Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, the UK had one of the most extreme climate change plans in the world. It was already starting to drag down the country’s economy, with expensive, unreliable energy, costly regulations, and endless green levies. It should be a relief to everyone that we have already joined the ranks of the “net sensibles” recognising that climate change is a serious issue but that we can’t make much of a difference by ourselves, and there is no point in bankrupting ourselves in the process. But there is still a long way to go before we finally undo the damage of the last few years - and put in place some grown up climate policies instead.

Some of this commentary I seriously wonder at. Justin a fan of fracking? Joe developing new oilfields? On the other hand the trend isn't wrong. It pretty much started with Germany coming to Canada looking for natural gas and being stiff-armed by Justin. German's Greens then started talking about winning elections by letting the Germans keep their existing home heating systems, scaling back on wind, burning more brown coal (exactly the same stuff that Justin demanded Saskatchewan stop burning at Coronach) and that the phase out of the nuclear plants would be phased out.

Apparently people get antsy if they get cold, can't travel and are told what they can't eat.
Why Rishi Sunak's speech is a big thing.

The Blob - (those that I called the Investors)

the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories ... Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative, as will the clerisy; he will be accused of hating the “youth”; the Church, the Left-wing think-tanks, big business and charities

The furious Blob will try to destroy Rishi Sunak for his net zero heresy​

Tories must get behind the PM’s green pragmatism, and prepare for a Brexit-style battle in the courts
ALLISTER HEATH20 September 2023 • 7:00pm
Allister Heath

Was I wrong about Rishi Sunak? Does he still, despite everything, have what it takes? In a dramatic move that may yet upend British politics, the Prime Minister has declared war on the green establishment, torn up the cross-party, fanatical consensus on how to achieve net zero, defied the useful idiots within his own party – including many of his closest allies – and promised a gentler, more humane, more sophisticated environmentalism committed to protecting consumers. It was the best speech he has ever given, and the first indication that he might, after all, have it in him to forge a new, more conservative vision for Britain.
There is now clear green water between the parties, making life trickier for Sir Keir Starmer. But I hope Sunak realises just how vicious the backlash will be: the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories will unleash every dirty trick in the book to force him to back down. Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative, as will the clerisy; he will be accused of hating the “youth”; the Church, the Left-wing think-tanks, big business and charities will continue to condemn him; there will be leaks, resignations, and attempts at ousting him. It will be nasty and frenzied, but he must hold firm.
Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. The same holds true for the other policies Sunak is delaying, including the ban on new oil and gas boilers. They are all examples of what the philosopher Rob Henderson calls “luxury beliefs”, ideas performatively adopted by hypocritical jet-setting elites to highlight their high social status, even though they inflict immense costs on those who can’t afford expensive electric cars or spare thousands to replace a boiler with technology that is not yet ready.
As recently as 2017, the original target for the ban on petrol cars was set at 2040. Sticking to the current 2030 deadline, a random date dreamt up by Boris Johnson because it sounded “better”, would represent the final triumph of dogma over reason. Our charging infrastructure won’t be ready, we won’t produce enough electricity and there won’t be enough truly cheap, long range all-electric models available, new or second-hand, to allow those with budgets of just a few thousand pounds to replace their vehicles. Prohibiting new combustion engines from 2035 onwards, as Sunak now wants to do, remains pretty extreme, but it’s at least a policy that stands a chance of being workable.
The PM isn’t proposing to ditch decarbonisation, or net zero – he just wants to travel to the same destination at a more reasonable speed, while keeping the public onside and avoiding a revolt. He believes in harnessing technology to solve environmental problems while improving living standards, rather than using green challenges as an excuse to impose a hair-shirt, “degrowth” agenda on an unwilling population, via taxes on meat or compulsory car-sharing. In a sensible world, Sunak would be seen as a green centrist aligning our decarbonisation agenda with the likes of the EU and California – rather than trying to go even faster – a policy which the bien pensant establishment would approve of in almost every other area.
In the neurotic, irrational world in which we live, of course, Sunak’s pragmatism is akin to unforgivable heresy, an intolerable transgression of the boundaries of rightthink. To understand why Britain is now about to return to Brexit-style legal and cultural warfare, one must grasp just how much power our hapless politicians have handed over to bureaucrats.
The central problem is Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband’s subversive 2008 Climate Change Act. The original idea – a legally binding, 60 per cent net reduction in emissions compared with 1990 levels by 2050 – was hardened to 80 per cent during the process. In 2019, during the dying days of her calamitous premiership, Theresa May increased the legally binding reduction to 100 per cent by 2050.
Supporters of the Act knew what they were doing: its legal-technocratic infrastructure was deliberately structured to prevent the sort of rearguard, common sense action now being advocated by Sunak. There isn’t just a 2050 deadline, but also five-year rolling carbon reduction targets that must be met by law. These “carbon budgets” must be agreed 12 years’ ahead of time, and accompanied by credible policies – although, scandalously, as the PM noted yesterday, they are not properly debated by MPs.
The Act created an extremely powerful quango, the Climate Change Committee, to “advise” the Government on where to set the budgets, and how exactly various sectors are squeezed to ensure they are met. The politicians have some room for manoeuvre, but not much.
The terrible truth is that Sunak is probably overstepping the mark. He has pressed the nuclear button: he has rejected the CCC’s advice and potentially torn up the fifth (2028-32) and sixth carbon budgets (2033-37). The latter was enshrined into law by Johnson in 2021. Sunak’s courage in defying this madness is remarkable, but he must now act strategically if he is to avoid being annihilated.
Green activists, corporate subsidy junkies and the rest are crying blue murder. They will claim – perhaps rightly, given the inane legislation – that the Government’s policies are unlawful. They will rush to their lawyers. The Left is already planning a raft of judicial reviews to prevent any airport expansion: the CCC has called for a temporary halt, and, longer-term, will surely demand that any increase in airport capacity (such as at Heathrow) be met by a reduction somewhere else (for example, by shutting Manchester Airport). This battle is a harbinger of things to come: the courts may well rule that the delay to phasing out the combustion engine is unlawful.
If Sunak wants to win, he will need to change the law – carbon budgets may need amending, requiring a Parliamentary vote. He may even need to amend the Climate Change Act itself. He will need to whip his MPs: he should learn from the Brexit battles of 2019, when Remainers who defied Johnson were thrown out of the party. If that fails, he will need to include a pledge to legislate for his relaxed deadlines in his 2024 manifesto.
The public tells pollsters it is pro net zero, but also objects to paying more to go green. The voters are on Sunak’s side, not the Blob’s: the Tory party must support the PM on this critical issue.

Why is Sunak taking this risk - like Justin he is behind in the polls and needs to go dramatic. Justin picked a fight with India. Rishi picked a fight with the Green Establishment.

But I think the Green Establishment is losing some of its heft judging from the Euro reaction to Vladimir's Gas Games.

An increasingly Right Wing world ... believe society to be broken.

Fury of the silent majority is driving a global Right-wing counter-revolution​

Across the Western world, anger at a woke ruling elite is benefiting the Right – apart from in Britain
ALLISTER HEATH16 August 2023 • 7:51pm

These are not happy times. Across the West, the vast majority of voters are fed up with the status quo, furious at the political class and desperate for alternatives. They believe society to be broken, that the post-industrial economy and globalisation generally aren’t working for them, and are angry at the vast cultural, social and technological changes that they feel have been foisted upon them.
Almost wherever one looks, from New Zealand to the Netherlands, hundreds of millions no longer feel in control, valued or even consulted by the self-satisfied ruling class. In the UK, 70 per cent believe the country is moving in the wrong direction, a YouGov poll reveals. An NBC poll found 74 per cent of Americans saying their country is on the wrong track.
We have entered the lengthiest period of prolonged popular disenchantment since the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of democratic politics, a disturbing state of affairs that urgently requires addressing if countries aren’t to fall prey to demagogues. It has become rational to be pessimistic, especially when elections don’t change anything.
Life expectancy may have peaked; economic growth has been feeble for years, as have real wages; certain groups have seen their prospects plunge especially severely; home ownership is increasingly out of reach; the family is under extreme pressure, and women are having far fewer children than they tell pollsters they would like; loneliness is exploding as it becomes harder to form and stay in long-term relationships; secularisation has left an unfilled spiritual void across the West that is being met by dysfunctional ideologies and social movements; and crime is far too high.
In many countries, university over-expansion has created a toxic two-tier society, fuelling elite overproduction. Woke storm-troopers have seized control of culture, education and business across the English-speaking world, imposing nihilistic gender extremism and critical race theories. The governing classes have got it shockingly wrong on many other issues, from foreign policy to Covid to money-printing, and never atone for their mistakes.
In Europe, including Britain, there is a popular consensus that there has been and remains too much immigration
. In France and several other countries, integration is widely understood to have failed. There is growing scepticism of the rush to net zero: while Western publics are very concerned about climate change, they aren’t prepared to see their living standards decimated to deal with it. There is an increased suspicion of the surveillance society and of the war against cash, and a growing urban-suburban clash.
This sense of alienation is especially prevalent among the working and lower middle classes, as well as the young, but no element of society is immune from it, other than perhaps multi-millionaires. As ever in times of dislocation, a small minority has embraced outright conspiracy theories (such as on 9/11) or despicable prejudice (such as anti-Semitism), fanned by rabble-rousers with no real solutions.
But even for the sensible majority, the belief in progress that used to define the Western psyche has faded, with hope replaced by despair, bitterness and fear. The political phenomenon of our times is mass discontent, and yet this crisis continues to be largely ignored by an unempathetic ruling class. Its only answer is more of the same: higher taxes, more social-democratic tinkering, more power to unaccountable bureaucracies such as the EU or WHO, increased immigration, and even greater social engineering.
In the past, when the ruling elites were conservative, such estrangement might have led the public into the arms of the Left. Contemporary elites are centre-Left utopian technocrats, and today’s counter-revolutionaries are on the Right. Almost everywhere, that is where the populist energy, the desire for change, lies.
In America, Oliver Anthony, a previously unknown musician who has shot to fame with Rich Men North of Richmond, symbolises this shift. He rails against low pay, welfarism, state-subsidised obesity, woke social control and rich Left-wing elites. His song, now number one on Apple ahead of Taylor Swift, encapsulates how Right-wing populism has become the anti-establishment movement globally. It is no wonder that the Republican party has been taken over: even if Donald Trump is destroyed, his second and third-placed rivals, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, are revolutionaries.
The latter two are great, but not all of the Right-wingers riding the international populist wave are good news. Some would be a disaster; others fantastic. Some rising parties are anti-capitalist, a grave error. In other cases, public concerns about the volume of immigration are being hijacked by politicians with an atavistic hatred of the other. Germany is in deep trouble, thanks to Angela Merkel, but it is hugely troubling, including for historical reasons, that the AfD is getting 22 per cent of the vote. Marine Le Pen has moderated her policies, but I’m unclear how her statist economics would save France.
Yet the global Right-wing revolution is gaining ground regardless. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni is prime minister. In the Netherlands, the anti-net zero farmers’ party has surged. Across the Continent, including in Scandinavia, mainstream parties are adopting once unthinkable policies on immigration. In Spain, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a rising star, is advocating Thatcherite populism. In New Zealand, the centre-Right is ahead in the polls and the libertarian ACT party has rocketed. In Argentina, one leading presidential contender is an anarcho-capitalist. In Paraguay, the Right-winger Santiago Peña has won the presidency. Benjamin Netanyahu regained power last December.
There are, of course, exceptions to the global shift to the Right: Brazil, where Lula’s neo-communists are back, and, of course, Britain, thanks to Tory uselessness. Brexit was the first domino to fall, the start of what will prove to be many international counter-revolutions against the Blob. The Tory party had a golden opportunity to channel this insurgency into a mainstream yet drastic programme of renewal. Boris Johnson could have been in power for a decade, yet he, together with Rishi Sunak, blew it, embracing net zero and social democratic profligacy and failing to control immigration and the public sector.
Keir Starmer will win, and then seek to impose Left-wing solutions on to an increasingly Right-wing world.

It could be said that the meritocracy is without merit. They are now a simulacrum of the post WW2 aristocracy.
Why is Sunak taking this risk - like Justin he is behind in the polls and needs to go dramatic. Justin picked a fight with India. Rishi picked a fight with the Green Establishment.

But I think the Green Establishment is losing some of its heft judging from the Euro reaction to Vladimir's Gas Games.

Because Rishi knows that masses revolting against costly, life-changing sacrifices can turn on a dime…Trudeau naively thinks that everyone one is unquestionably onboard his green train.
All those electric vehicles run on tires made from oil. Is Trudeau going to ban tires along with Lego?

According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, it takes “approximately seven gallons” of oil to produce a single tire. “Five gallons are used as feedstock (from which the substances that combine to form synthetic rubber are derived), while two gallons supply the energy necessary for the manufacturing process.” Mar 2, 2012

Canada's Banker Making UK Friends​

The political class has betrayed Brexit by turning Britain into a European country​

We probably wouldn’t notice if Keir Starmer didn’t diverge from the EU. The Tories haven’t either
22 September 2023 • 5:24pm
Camilla Tominey

Mark Carney

Former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney harangues Brexiteers for failing to understand economics - but how good was his record? CREDIT: ARUN SANKAR/AFP

Mark Carney once again proved himself to have the brassiest of brass necks this week when he claimed that Liz Truss had turned Britain into “Argentina on the Channel”. The former governor of the Bank of England also criticised “far-Right populists” and Brexiteers for having a “basic misunderstanding of what drives economies” during a typically self-serving speech in his native Canada.
With Argentina having become a byword in recent years for economic crisis, the reference was intended as a slight on the mini-Budget drawn up by Ms Truss and her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year. Speaking at the Global Progress Action Summit in Montreal, Carney hit out at the “misguided view” that reducing taxes and government spending leads to economic growth – and accused Brexiteers of wanting to “tear down the future”.
But isn’t it more a case of Brexiteers wanting to recreate the past, pre-Carney world of economic growth over managed decline?
During his tenure as governor from 2013 to 2020, the UK’s GDP growth rate struggled at around 2 per cent a year, before falling to 1.6 per cent in 2019 before lockdown caused it to drop to minus-11 per cent in 2020, according to World Bank figures.
Carney says he doesn’t believe cutting taxes and government spending leads to growth, but where exactly has his “values-led” economic approach got us? Certainly, today we are now being taxed more than ever for an overly bloated state delivering increasingly inadequate public services. Oh, and growth is still virtually stagnant.
Yet it is little wonder that Remainer Carney feels so emboldened to make such remarks. Britain might not be the Singapore-on-Thames that many Brexiteers wanted but it isn’t Argentina, either. The fact of the matter is that we have quietly become a very European country in terms of tax and spend – and like the rest of Europe, it’s failing us (not that Carney and Co would care to admit it).
Perhaps the most striking thing about Sir Keir Starmer’s suggestion that Britain would not diverge from EU rules if Labour wins power at the next election is not that he’s once again betrayed his pro-Remain sympathies. The Labour leader made the intervention in Montreal on Saturday, when he was speaking at an event hosted by Canada 2020, a centre-Left think tank whose advisory board is chaired by none other than Mark Carney. “Actually, we don’t want to diverge,” said Starmer. “There’s a lot more common ground than you might think.”
As I wrote in last week’s column, the Labour leader has repeatedly proved that he cannot be trusted to respect the referendum result, and this is yet more evidence of it.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of his pledge to improve relations with Brussels by sticking to the bloc’s standards is that we might not even notice. Despite Boris Johnson’s “take back control” promises, his government and subsequent administrations have done little to diverge from the EU.
Lord Frost won us huge new freedoms as part of his Brexit deal. We now have the power to do almost anything we like.
But what have we used these freedoms to do? Scrap the “tampon tax”. Across a swathe of areas, very little has changed. Immigration is even higher, our laws are increasingly European, and our fiscal policy is increasingly European, too.
Johnson had Iain Duncan Smith’s report, The Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform (TIGRR), outlining how Britain could seize new opportunities from Brexit with its newfound regulatory freedom, on his desk for months and failed to act on it.
Rishi Sunak has made a few small changes in areas like freeports, but the truth of the matter is that we have done precious little to gain a competitive edge on our European counterparts. In fact, with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s corporation tax rise and refusal to scrap the tourist tax, we are probably less competitive than we were before Brexit.
We have also regressed when it comes to rejoining the Horizon science programme, when we could have branched out on our own or pursued closer collaboration with the US, Switzerland, Japan and Australia instead.
So if Starmer does want to get closer to the EU, it’s not as if we would be giving up a brilliant independent science policy or radical deregulation of labour laws, or some world-enviable 15 per cent rate of corporate tax.
Hunt’s declaration on Thursday that tax cuts are “virtually impossible” at present was also revealing. Admitting that high debt interest payments have left him with little “fiscal headroom” for giveaways, he said: “If you look at what we are having to pay for our long-term debt, it is higher now than it was at the Spring Budget.
“I wish it wasn’t, it makes life extremely difficult, it makes tax cuts virtually impossible, and it means that I will have another set of frankly very difficult decisions.”
Of course, he’s right to say that debt is constraining our choices. But that doesn’t seem to be constraining public spending. The Government spent vast amounts of money to help to deal with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-21, so the total increased by more than usual in that year. It then fell back in 2021-22, but began to increase again immediately afterwards; in cash terms, total spending in 2022-23 was higher than it had been during the pandemic.
Spending as a proportion of GDP went up to 53 per cent during the pandemic, higher than at any point since the Second World War. Yet forecasts now suggest that spending will only return to around 45 per cent of GDP by 2024-25 – which is still at the upper limit of what it has been for the preceding four decades.
So if you take Starmer’s comments at face value, all he is really saying is that Labour has the same pitiful ambition for Britain as Carney and, seemingly, our high tax and spend government. Yet still they mock Brexiteers for aspiring to something better than this economic torpor.
Who on earth would blame
Leavers – or any voters, for that matter – for wanting to “tear down” a future of more of the same? Carney doesn’t have a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow any more than France, Germany or Italy do right now, which are all in such a crippling stasis that his so-called “far-Right populists” are poised to take over, following the lead of Giorgia Meloni, who is already in power in Italy.
The depressing truth at the heart of all Starmer’s peacocking around France and Montreal this week is that, if he does crush Brexit, he will find that the ground has been prepared for him.

Canada 2020 is tied to the Clinton-Podesta-Blair train of Democrats, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats.
The Labour leader made the intervention in Montreal on Saturday, when he was speaking at an event hosted by Canada 2020, a centre-Left think tank whose advisory board is chaired by none other than Mark Carney.

Canada 2020….centre-left?

I believe in democracy as a pedagogical exercise,
Josep Borrel - The EU’s external affairs commissioner, most senior diplomat

pedagogical -
relating to the methods and theory of teaching

exercise -
physical activity that you do to make your body strong and healthy
an action or actions intended to improve something or make something happen
a short piece of written work that you do to practise something you are learning
the use of something

I think I might have found it easier just to say I believe in democracy.
But, there again, I'm a populist.

Last edited:
Scientists don't like warming...
Perhaps they should stay out of the kitchen.

Rishi Sunak urged to stop attacking Climate Change Committee​

Scientists ask PM to cease ‘politicising’ government’s independent advisers after his remarks and Tory letter to journalists

Helena Horton Environment reporter
Fri 22 Sep 2023 17.17 BST

Scientists have written to Rishi Sunak asking him to stop “politicising” and attacking the Climate Change Committee (CCC), an independent body that exists to advise the government on five-year “carbon budgets” necessary to meet its 2050 target.
This week Sunak spoke about his plans to weaken his government’s environmental policies. When asked about comments from Chris Stark, the chief executive of the CCC, saying that the government would not hit the carbon budget with its current plans, Sunak replied: “I am very happy to get opinions and advice from everybody, and everyone’s entitled to their view.”

He added: “For those who disagree with me … the question’s for them – they should explain to the country why they think it’s right that ordinary families up and down the country should fork out five, 10, £15,000? … I don’t think they need to, and if someone disagrees then they should explain why.”
Subsequently Conservative headquarters wrote to journalists outlining measures from the CCC and asking them to demand that the Labour party reveal whether it would adopt them in government.
Bob Ward, the director of communications at the Grantham Institute for Climate at Imperial College, said in a letter to Sunak, seen by the Guardian: “My primary concern is a document that was circulated to journalists by Conservative campaign headquarters after your speech, which attempted to politicise the advice of the Climate Change Committee.
“Although this document was described as ‘Questions to Labour on Net Zero’, it included a section on ‘New measures which the CCC has said would need to be introduced …’ It cited issues described as ‘road taxes’, ‘flight taxes’ and ‘diet change’.”
Ward continued in his letter: “While your government is perfectly entitled not to accept advice from the committee, it is extremely unhelpful to politicise its role and its advice in this way. I hope that you will find an opportunity to acknowledge this mistake and to reaffirm the importance of the committee offering robust and rigorous independent advice on compliance with the Climate Change Act.”
Prof Martin Siegert, a co-director of the Grantham Institute, said this was a “cynical move” to openly add criticism to the body that offered independent advice, adding: “I have listened with concern in recent days. The PM’s focus, and those of cabinet and other ministers and members of government, on claiming the CCC is recommending policies that are unaffordable to the general public. They are clearly not government policy, and can only become policy under this government. When asked where these ideas came from, the response has been that the CCC recommended them.”
The government is in charge of appointing the new chair of the committee, and there are fears among the scientific community that Sunak will choose someone who allows him to weaken the next carbon budgets, or that the prime minister will stoke public distaste for the committee in order to change the carbon budgets in parliament.
A spokesperson from No 10 responded by sending comments Sunak made to broadcasters earlier in the week in which he said: “Lots of people will have lots of different views on this. We’ve been through the numbers. we’re confident that we are on track to deliver all our targets. And I would point out people have predicted we would miss our carbon budgets in the past, but we’ve actually met every single one of them.”

Follow the money.....

Upthread I listed the world's major banks and their assets under management. The largest of the US banks in the top 100, JP Morgan Chase, had $3.8 Trillion USD under management. The totality of assets under management by US banks in that list was about $16.8 Trillion USD.

Mark Carney has got himself a job managing $130 Trillion USD. - GFANZ.

And he is backed by Michael Bloomberg and the United Nations.

As the politics and economics of climate change alter, so will business. At Westminster Tube station this week, I spotted BP’s new advertisement designed to form the opinions of passing parliamentarians. It speaks of “And, not or”. The emphasis is on renewables working with fossil fuels, instead of the company’s previous rush to ditch the latter, promoted by their outgoing chief executive.

Bets are being hedged. How many of the $130 trillion assets under management promised by the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (led by Mark Carney) will now be there when anyone needs them?

Accelerating the transition to a net-zero global economy​

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is a global coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.

Achieving the objective of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels requires a whole economy transition. Companies, banks, insurers, and investors will need to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, and then implement those plans.

GFANZ has worked to develop the tools and methodologies needed to turn financial institutions’ net-zero commitments into action.

Led by financial institutions and climate experts​

GFANZ is led by a Principals Group comprising CEOs from financial institutions that have joined an Alliance, representative(s) from the UN, chairs of the GFANZ regional networks and the GFANZ Leadership Team. An Advisory Panel of technical climate action groups ensures that GFANZ’s work is held to the highest standards of ambition while keeping climate science at the heart of everything GFANZ does. Michael R. Bloomberg, UN Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, and Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, serve as GFANZ Co-Chairs, and Mary Schapiro serves as the Vice Chair and Head of the Secretariat.

Presumably the UK's Climate Change Committee is one of those "technical climate action groups" on the GFANZ Advisory Panel "keeping climate science at the heart of everything".

Liz Truss was brought down by investors over $60 Billion of Tax Cuts that may or may not have been funded to the investors' satisfaction.
Mark Carney is sitting on a pot of assets of $130 Trillion.
$60 Billion / $130 Trillion.

Trudeau's deficit was
$70 Billion last year but has shrunk to $30 Billion this year.
Same order of magnitude but nobody is rushing to bring his government down.

New World Order.
UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said: “Uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero is crucial to unlocking the finance we need to get there – from backing pioneering firms and new technologies to building resilient economies around the world. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero will lead this charge ahead of COP26 to scale-up our ambition, accelerate our shift and help us to build back greener together.”

U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said: “The largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity as well as a planetary imperative. As countries around the world move to decarbonize, the large sums these institutions are dedicating to climate finance also reflect a growing understanding of how critical a low-carbon global economy is to their business models. Ultimately, their commitment of capital and assets, as well as adherence to high standards and reporting, will accelerate the transition to this new economy, create a massive number of new jobs, and increase our collective ability to tackle the climate crisis.

Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Prime Minister Johnson’s Climate Finance Advisor for COP26, said: “This is the breakthrough in mainstreaming climate finance the world needs. I welcome the leadership of the Financial Services Task Force and other global banks for their new commitments to net zero and for joining forces with GFANZ, the gold standard for net zero commitments in the financial sector. Most fundamentally, GFANZ will act as the strategic forum to ensure the financial system works together to broaden, deepen, and accelerate the transition to a net zero economy.”

For reference - George Soros "The Man Who Broke The Bank Of England"

In the week leading up to September 16, 1992 or "Black Wednesday," Quantum Funds earned $1.8 billion by shorting British pounds and buying German marks.[15] This transaction earned Soros the title of "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England". On the other hand, British government policy in the period before the ejection of the pound sterling from the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the European Monetary System had been widely criticised for providing speculators with a one-way bet.[16]

In 2000, the Quantum Fund lost its position as the largest hedge fund in the world when its assets under management changed $10 billion to $4 billion in about a year's time.

Soros broke the Bank of England with less that 14 BUSD in Assets Under Management.

14 BUSD / 130 TrUSD

0.01% of the leverage held by Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg.
Last edited:
While a cynical thought, banks are in business to make money, not make the world a better place.

Strange that people are quick to jump on industry (say defense, resources, groceries, etc.) that don’t deny profit is part of their business, yet a banking nexus drapes itself in green shawls and many fawn over their benevolence to make the planet a better place…