Here's our summary of key economic events overnight with news that while we are all transfixed by the war in Ukraine, are ignoring an even bigger threat.
But first in Russia, sanctions are biting, almost as quickly as the war in Ukraine escalates. The Ukrainian forces are holding on much better than many expected. Kyiv still holds uncaptured. Kharkiv too, which is a huge surprise. However Kharkiv's dogged resistance is drawing increasing Russian bombardment and terror bombings of civilian areas.
The Russian Central Bank has instituted a huge rate increase, taking it from an already high 9.5% to 20%. The Moscow stock exchange has suspended trading. The ruble has reached 119:USD, although it is lower now, but it is a huge net -30% devaluation in just a few days, on top of earlier drops.
The Swiss have suspended their usual neutrality in horror of what is happening, and have frozen Russian funds in their banking system. This is an extreme measure for them. Norway is quitting its Russian investments. Fund managers around the globe are too.
Meanwhile the cyber war is intensifying. Toyota, the world’s largest carmaker, said that it had suspended all production in Japan after a possible cyberattack at a major supplier. Hino and Daihatsu have also shut down.
The other battle raging in the world - on climate change - is now an news afterthought. But it is arguably more serious, certainly in the long run. And it is being lost. The IPCC now says the dangers of climate change are mounting so rapidly that they could soon overwhelm the ability of both nature and humanity to adapt unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly reduced. That is according to their major new scientific update released overnight.
For Australia, the IPCC says they can expect more drought, more fire and more floods, and less snow and less coral. Presently wild weather in southern Queensland and northern NSW is extreme even by their standards. The immediate danger from flooding is rising and still ahead of them this week.
Elsewhere, the booming US economy is sucking in imports faster than it is exporting. That has resulted in a record merchandise trade deficit, although their services surplus will mitigate some of that. US exports rose +15% in January from the same month a year ago. But their imports rose +21% on the same basis. However given the overall US$24 tln in annual economic activity there, the net deficit is actually small, and financed in its own currency so the negative impact is even smaller.
But in the US manufacturing heartland around Chicago, their expansion is slowing. The growth in new orders is slowing, and almost a quarter of firms there said they had an outright reductions. They also reported that cost pressures eased somewhat.
However, things look brighter in the Texas factory sector. New orders rose after a January stumble, and inflationary pressures remain as strong.
In the US, and not waiting for regulators, credit bureau Equifax will record “buy-now-pay-later” installment loans in their credit reporting.
Producer price pressure is still high and rising in Canada too.
China is getting itself in a tangle over Russia and Ukraine. A rare public debate has broken out there on what their policy should be. China is looking increasingly irrelevant in this mess. More disappointing for Beijing is that there is no reputation or diplomatic afterglow from their Winter Olympics. New best friend Russia has stolen their glory.
In India, new data there shows their economy is losing momentum and quite quickly. Of particular concern to them is that both trade and investment are going backwards. India is heading for an election soon, and without a robust economic record to run on, their Hindu nationalist government will fall back on their extreme culture wars to campaign on, which will make India an unstable place.
Back in Australia, retail sales came in above expectations, posting a surprisingly good +1.8% gain in January. Omicron-related drags look to have been minimal in the month with only two retail channel categories recording sales retreats and some exposed segments holding up much better than expected. Food inflation due to the pandemic disruptions may have driven the increase.
The UST 10yr yield opens today at 1.87% and down -10 bps from this time yesterday as a risk-off mood settles on markets. The UST 2-10 rate curve starts today a little steeper at +42 bps. Their 1-5 curve is flatter at +73 bps but their 30 day-10yr curve is much flatter at +181 bps. The Australian ten year bond is down -7 bps at 2.17%. The China Govt ten year bond is little-changed at 2.81%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is down -5 bps at 2.76%.
Wall Street opened its trading this week with a a big fall, but in afternoon trade it has clawed its way back to even. Then it has started falling again, down -1.0% now. Overnight European markets were all lower again in a range from London down -0.3% to Paris down -1.2%. Yesterday, Tokyo ended its Monday session up +0.2%, Hong Kong was down -0.2%, and Shanghai was up +0.3%. The ASX200 ended up +0.7% and the NZX50 was up +0.5% in their Monday sessions.
The price of gold starts today at US$1895/oz and up +US$6/oz from this time yesterday. The prospect of a flood of gold re-entering the market from sanctioned countries is keeping a lid on this price.
And oil prices are sharply higher today, up +US$3 now just under US$94.50/bbl. The international price is just under US$97.50/bbl. But even though it has touched the benchmark in intra-day trade, oil still has not really gone to US$100 yet, which is a surprise for either grade.
The Kiwi dollar will open today at 67.7 USc after a volatile 24 hours, which is up more than +1c from its lows yesterday but only up +¼c from this time yesterday. Against the Australian dollar we are at 93.3 AUc and a marginal slip. Against the euro we at 60.3 euro cents and a rise back to its 2022 highs. That means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 72.4 and a five week high.
The bitcoin price has jumped today, up +4.8% to US$41,104 from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been extreme at +/- 5.8%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
133 Comments
Putin's invasion is not going his way. Russia suffers from sanctions, even the sports world is turning its back. In the court of public opinion, russian vodkha poured down the drain.
I, as a layman, think the financial sanctions puts Russia with North Korea, Iran and Cuba. China, although "buddies" with Putin, is not likely to take sides, not show any support for Russia publicly.
Yeah. I am worried.
3 days ago I felt the real threat of nuclear war was less than 5%, I now feel it's much higher.
Back him into a corner and then he invades the Baltic states? Then it really is grim.
The non use of nuclear weapons always hinged on rational actors being in charge of them...
I only see it being up to the West if they force Zelensky to capitulate. The West failed to address Russia's concerns before the invasion. The West had its head in the ground, deliberately, thinking they could dismiss Russia's, specifically Putin's concerns. Look at the result even though Russia is in the wrong. It now appears we will have some partial Aleppo's.
No - there was no rush to admit Ukraine, but Latvia and Estonia who both border Russia in the north are already members of NATO and as i understand it they have to ask, apply to become members, meeting comprehensive standards to be admitted. Those countries who were former Soviet states asked to join because their experience of the Russian bear is not good. they are justified it seems.
Part of me feels its more about Oil and Gas from the Wests perspective, there must be a long game they are playing...
Theglc, you're not wrong:
- In 2012, new deposits of natural gas off the Crimean peninsula were found. Oil deposits were found in eastern (near the "independent' Donbas area) and western Ukraine (between Belarus and Moldova).
- These would have made Ukraine the 2nd largest oil and gas producer in Europe after Russia.
- Ukraine was Russia-friendly then, but in 2014 the Russia-friendly government was ousted and a pro-western government elected in.
- Ukraine controls a substantial pipeline from Russia to Europe and has since increased the cost to Russia of using the pipeline to billions every year.
- NATO in 2008 welcomed the idea of admitting Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members. With the discovery of the gas and oil, the EU even more courted Ukraine as a new NATO member.
- Since Russia annexed Crimea, Ukraine has cut off water supply (via a canal diverting from the Duniper river) to the 2 million people in Crimea. Water levels are down to 7% of what it used to be and there's severe rationing .
Both MILITARILY (if Ukraine was attacked by Russia, it would be able to declare article 5 and bring the full might of NATO against Russia and reclaim the Crimea) and ECONOMICALLY (Europe can turn to Ukraine for oil and gas instead of Russia) Russia would stand to lose in every way with the way Ukraine was heading.
As the saying goes, follow the money...
- NATO in 2008 welcomed the idea of admitting Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members. With the discovery of the gas and oil, the EU even more courted Ukraine as a new NATO member.
Incorrect. President Bush lobbied for it, and other NATO countries opposed it. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html
The 2014 pro-russian government wasn't ousted, it was the subject of a US sponsored coup d'etat, with all too predictable results:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-wa…
Already in place. The Mongol empire got as far west as invading the Volga Bolgas, so when Kublai Khan got ahold of the rest of China, that would have been part of the Yuan dynasty as it was then founded. If they had known what could be done with oil they may have hung on a bit longer no doubt.
The question would be who would he target? The use of nukes in Ukraine undermines his own goals, whatever they are, and the NATO members have missile defences and their armed forces are all fully awake. While everyone is praying he wouldn't be stupid enough to use his nukes, remember a little over a week ago they were all praying he wouldn't be stupid enough to invade Ukraine.....
Rationally he shouldn't use them even in a war with NATO, unless NATO actually tried to overrun Russia. However I too am starting to have doubts he is fully rational.
If he is still rational, he will find a way to end the conflict in Ukraine but still save face. A token agreement where he can claim he's gained something. Perhaps Ukraine agree to neutrality of some sort.
NATO must now reinforce, with priority, all their members that have a Russian border. If Russian troops are struggling to overcome Ukrainian resistance, then that indicates to me that there actual military prowess is questionable. Still if the conscript army is being used as cannon fodder and air strike capability is not being fully employed, that might explain a bit of that. The thing is even if/when Ukraine is subdued and absorbed, Russia still has NATO hard against its borders. The Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Turkey for instance. Where else can Putin go then? Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and then only to the east. The other question is of course Finland, but that would be a too tough nut, from the look of it.
Seems those rockets the UK supplied have taken the steam out of Russian plans to dominate the theatre. Reports state the downing of several aircraft. Air bombardment seems to consist of cruise missiles. Of course that is just my amateur observation, but it would explain Russian inability to overwhelm.
Latvia and Estonia, NATO members, border on Russia proving the lie of many of Putin's claims with respect to his concerns re NATO. No there is some other bee in his bonnet about Ukraine, and possibly the Black Sea. With Ukraine subsumed, if he succeeds, the threat he poses escalates significantly in the Black Sea region, especially to Turkey and beyond. Turkey is in NATO, but Erdogan is another strongman, unpredictable and greedy. I seem to remember there has been some discussion on suspending Turkey's membership of NATO, but now that may be the only leash that would restrain him if he succumbed to Putin's approaches?
The Black Sea could already be considered to be a Russian lake, but Turkey controls its access at the Dardenelle Strait. Could Putin be looking for smoother access to the Med?
As discussed difficult to see Erdogan convincing his people that Russians are their best buddies. Any alliance would be a very uneasy alliance indeed. Both nations have considerable economic & social challenges, it’s only in algebra that two minuses make a plus. What ever Putin’s scheme is, can only imagine it is now not as it started out to be. Ukranian resistance and western unification and response was undoubtedly underestimated. Putin must by now have taken advice as to the impact of the sanctions, short & long term, and be weighing that up against the capacity of his supposed war chest and as well the world view of his military, so far stumbling around and that makes him too look weak. Ukraine is looking like becoming something of a pyrrhic victory in that Russia will come out of it weaker than it went in and looking rather foolish, amongst all the international backlash on the humanitarian issues. Hell this is 1956 Hungary on much a grander and destructive scale and it puts Russia right back in that element.
FG. Putin will be mindful of the military debacle in Chechnya in the 1990's when Russian commanders foolishly poured armour into tight urban streets which were promptly cut to ribbons by a ragtag army of rebels armed with comparatively crude weapons. If the Ukrainians stand and fight in Kyiv using their far more sophisticated lightweight guided missiles, Putin will have no option but to reduce much of the city to rubble with heavy conventional weapons, as happened in Chechnyan cities such as Grozny. I fear we are about to see the same pitiful sights as Damascus and Aleppo, writ larger. In an historical curiosity Kiev was the site of one early example of large scale radio controlled bombs when the Russkies in 1941 remotely triggered devices they'd left behind which levelled 200 buildings and killing hundreds of German soldiers.
Guernica, Rotterdam, Belgrade, Dresden. Not without precedent. If that is what it takes, that will be done for sure. The world has to understand that Russia has not changed. Ever since & before Peter the Great subjects are disposables. The Tsars & aristocracy have simply been replaced by Red Tsars and oligarchs . These are modern times though. Ever since Vietnam war has been carried into household viewing globally and now it is instantaneous. There will be horrendous inhumanities inflicted. Because of technology, it can’t be hidden away, Putin is poised to make Russia and Russians, internationally, pariahs on a scale not seen since Germany 1945
Nonsense, Russia has always been against it's neighbours being part of NATO. The existence of Kaliningrad on the northern part of Europe is why Russia does not get too excited by them joining - it serves a key role in countering US missile defences in Europe. It is a military stronghold for Russia, containing thousands of troops, some of their most advanced missile systems and home to their Baltic fleet. Any provocation from those NATO members could see them caught in the middle of some serious firepower.
The strategic situation shows pretty clearly whey Russia wanted the Crimea, despite ethnic makeup of the peoples in the area.
What is Kaliningrad Oblast surrounded by? Not Russia. that serious fire power would be depleted pretty quickly.
I understand that under the Soviets a pretty big program was to resettle ethnic Russians into all of the Soviet states. It was one of the ways Stalin and his mates maintained control. Did they do that to Crimea too? If his rationale re NATO of substance, and with Kaliningrad in the neighbourhood why didn't he invade Latvia or Estonia?
Tell me Blobbles you seem to be justifying Putin's position - are you an apologist for him? Do you support what he has done?
It's pretty clear from looking at a map, the strategic importance of Kaliningrad is, despite your assumption.
Ahhh yes, I see we are getting to the point of "If you don't support the hardcore line against <insert enemy>, you must be an enemy or a sympathiser!". Classic rhetoric drummed up by the small minded to justify their outrage.
I will say it again and try and put it in simple terms. NATO is an organisation specifically set up to counter the Russian threat. It has nuclear weapons. The expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia is therefore militarily, very provocative. It becomes even more provocative if Ukraine joins. Some of the most ardent creators and supports of US foreign policy are against the admission of Ukraine into NATO, for these reasons.
Why can you not see the double standard of not allowing Russian nukes into Cuba, yet wanting Ukraine to become armed with US nukes? If Russia came out saying it was going to put it's new hypersonic missiles into Cuba, do you think Biden would sit back and say "That's fine, Cuba can decide whoever it wants to associate with as a sovereign nation" like he did with Ukraine? Yes? What about if Mexico decided the same thing?
Putting an oppositions nukes on their borders or even suggesting that it's possible is an untenable position for a country. The sooner you wake up to that, the sooner you will become enlightened.
I don't support any invasion, but I can at least see why it's come to that for Russia. Denying the entire leadup to the invasion and the Western powers hand in it, is idiotic. Putin said he had a red line, much like the US and it's allies have spelled out in the past in various other conflicts. It was crossed last year at the Brussels Summit.
Not sure if any missiles intended for Ukraine let alone nuclear. The thing is an intercontinental missile, or fired from a sub in the North Sea would overfly Ukraine, en route to target, in minutes. But if you look at the map, Ukraine is the big buffer zone isn’t it. This is where after Stalingrad, WW2 it was all hammered out, Kharkov was taken twice & liberated twice, Kursk greatest armour battle in history and the river Dnieper both obstacle and defence. Always has been, Napoleon didn’t make it much past there for long. That is why it was briefly ceded to Germany in WW1 when they then had the Bolsheviks over a barrel. I think encroachment, or even threatened encroachment, by the West was too much for traditional Russian ideology to accept, let alone NATO membership. Maybe, hopefully that is all it is and this could have been avoided if Ukraine had been declared and respected as being neutral. But Putin’s recent rhetoric carries the question much further now doesn’t it. Incidentally Audaxes posted in the weekend here a link to Kissinger’s paper from 2016 I think, which really sums it all up. Audaxes where are you, can you post again?
Just because they don't plan on putting nukes or missiles in Ukraine now, does not mean they wouldn't suggest it in the future. And because Russia has no ability to create a blockade of those weapons from entering Ukraine from the West (like the US does in Cuba), it has to have the buffer states remain neutral. Else it is ceding a massive military advantage to potential aggressors. The inability of the myopic one eyed Western viewpoint to see this, is fascinating to watch. This is how World Wars begin, a series of brinkmanship alliances that escalate into full blown hot wars, we haven't learned from history. And as the comment above shows, people lose sight of the real issue and descend into "us vs them" rhetoric that doesn't take into account any past mistakes from both sides.
Blobbles you're becoming extremist. None of Putin's rhetoric stacks up. Kaliningrad is surrounded by NATO. It sits on the Baltic but so do all the other NATO nations in that area. If NATO's possible membership was a threat to Russia (read Putin) then why isn't Latvia or Estonia, which are members of NATO? And the answer is not Kaliningrad because it is significantly out numbered by the surrounding NATO nations. Indeed the very existence of Kalinigrad proves the fallacy of Putin's rhetoric. If NATO was any of the threat that Putin claims it to be, how would you explain the continued existence of Kaliningrad as Russian territory in the midst of NATO?
In addition NATO was not formed to counter the RUSSIAN threat. It was formed to counter the SOVIET threat which was very overt (as was the US anti-Communism). The Russian nukes in Cuba are not the same as at the time there was no defence from them, their flight time was too short. Russia has long been the single largest nuclear power in Europe. None of the weapons deployed there even come close to matching what the Russians currently have. Putin has systematically trashed every security agreement he has had with the Ukraine. Why wouldn't they want to join NATO?
Yes there are US nuclear weapons in Europe. They are "stored" in five secure locations not "deployed". Why would the world suddenly change and decide Ukraine, right on the border of Russia and with internal tensions about who they will be politically aligned with, was a safe place to store nukes?
As so many very educated people are saying today Putin's invasion of Ukraine defies all logic. You cannot manufacture some analogy about Mexico to justify what he is doing now it's just rubbish!
This video covers range of potential geopolitical reasons for Russia's invasion, covering energy, water security, NATO expansion and strategic military reasons. I'd highly recommend you watch it all as it well researched and provides more compelling explanations than what people here are offering.
Just watched this video - now Putin's actions make sense. This is the best description of why Putin has invaded Ukraine. It has little to do with Russia's border security and more to do with Putin's security. Ukraine represented a risk to Putin's government revenue if they developed their oil resources. Interesting that Crimea needs water from Ukraine.
I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics you have going on inside your head to claim that Kaliningrad isn't strategically significant. Frankly, it's baffling to the point of idiocy. Do you honestly believe having a fully armed outpost in amongst enemy territory isn't of strategic importance? Thank god you aren't leading any armies... You also cannot seem to CLICK ON A LINK that shows how upset Russia was at those members joining, written in 2004. Hell, even Kaliningrads wikipedia page states it's importance to Russia's defences.
I won't respond to more, you clearly don't understand the situation enough nor military strategy to have any useful input.
I've never said Kaliningrad is not strategically significant. Don't put words in my mouth. I have said it is surrounded and out numbered by NATO.
Understanding of military strategy Blobbles - what is your background - armchair expert? I served in the military for 20 years!
Putin’s Nuclear Threat - Scott Ritter
Hidden near the bottom of this statement, however, was a passage which, when examined closely, underpinned the reasoning behind Putin’s nuclear muscle-flexing. “[W]e have held consultations under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty,” the statement noted. “We have decided, in line with our defensive planning to protect all Allies, to take additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defense across the Alliance.”
Under Article 4, members can bring any issue of concern, especially related to the security of a member country, to the table for discussion within the North Atlantic Council. NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland triggered the Article 4 consultation following the Russian incursion into Ukraine. In a statement issued on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expanded on the initial NATO statement, declaring that NATO was committed to protecting and defending all its allies, including Ukraine.
Three things about this statement stood out. First, by invoking Article IV, NATO was positioning itself for potential offensive military action; its previous military interventions against Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2004, and Libya in 2011, were all done under Article IV of the NATO Charter. Seen in this light, the premise that NATO is an exclusively defensive organization, committed to the promise of collective self-defense, is baseless.
I think you're being naive - Putin doesn't seem to care. Putting his nuclear forces on the highest alert, no matter his PR about it, only gains a counter response. Putin's putting all his cards into the game. The question is will he bet it all? He must have a lot of faith in that bunker he's hiding in.
None of what he is doing makes sense - to us. He is turning the whole world including ordinary Russians against him. As I said he has put all his cards in the game, will he bet it all too?
I just hope the powers, US, UK, Germany - whoever, know exactly where his hot little body is hiding so the laser target marker makes sure he gets hit.
Not many understand diplomacy in the world. It's a fine art.
If you put a snake in a corner and have no where to run, it will come back and bite. And this one is a powerful snake with nukes.
So only way out is diplomacy and only smart ones understand it. Stupid people talk about fighting an idiot with a gun when that idiot might have a bigger gun.
I'm pretty confident NATO understand that. I would be extremely surprised if they are not pursuing aggressive efforts at diplomacy. This will need to involve a significant degree of strategic compromise, I am not sure unfortunately how much compromising NATO will be prepared to do. It can be hard compromising with a war mongering asshole who holds all the power and ego.
You all really need to research prior to commenting on this article.
So far Russia has committed only about 1/3 of the forces built up on the boarder. And even that is a fraction of what's available.
You should also research how far modern armies can move in 1 day and how far this Russian group can move with the number of supply trucks available.
I've seen some commentary that suggests they've actually advanced about as fast as any modern army could expect overthe 1st couple of days. Then have stopped/slowed.
Note they are now negotiating...
So are they looking to subdue and occupy the whole of The Ukraine? I don't think so, they'd have committed much more firepower.
The west and the current west supporting Ukrainian leadership didn't listen to Russias complaints before. East provinces, nato inclusion.
Well they may listen now with Russian MBTs parked just out of the capital.
So far Russia has committed only about 1/3 of the forces built up on the boarder. And even that is a fraction of what's available.
That's the strange thing about it. They invaded piecemeal, not in the typical blitzkrieg style. And they are running low on logistics already, despite only penetrating about 100kms into Ukraine.
Bizarre... Can only think that the Russian military despite massive modernisation is really not up to snuff.
On paper, they already had twice the number of units (BTGs - battalion tactical group) they'd need to take over the entire Ukraine before 24 Feb, according to military analysts. If they had committed fully at the start, they'd have a really good chance of quick victory.
As it is, they are bogged down, running out of fuel and running into increasing resistance, lack total air superiority and have lost much men and material.
You all really need to research prior to commenting on this article.
So far Russia has committed only about 1/3 of the forces built up on the boarder. And even that is a fraction of what's available.
You should also research how far modern armies can move in 1 day and how far this Russian group can move with the number of supply trucks available.
I've seen some commentary that suggests they've actually advanced about as fast as any modern army could expect overthe 1st couple of days. Then have stopped/slowed.
Note they are now negotiating...
So are they looking to subdue and occupy the whole of The Ukraine? I don't think so, they'd have committed much more firepower.
The west and the current west supporting Ukrainian leadership didn't listen to Russias complaints before. East provinces, nato inclusion.
Well they may listen now with Russian MBTs parked just out of the capital.
Elsewhere, the booming US economy is sucking in imports faster than it is exporting.
Where is the Fed Funds rate in respect of ZIRP? - Oh, right next door.
Dependence on debt fueled consumption is deflationary hence the low rates.
Bradley R. Heinrichs, an Idaho real-estate agent, quoted the Bible to Christian families as he promised them annual returns as high as 25 percent. But it was all a scam.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/idaho-real-estate-agent-bradley-r-heinric…
My main reason for being a monarchist is having the Queen as head of the Church of England. The French side of my family grasp and even slightly envy having a Monarch as head of state but head of a church is incomprehensible. It will get even better when King Charles is head of the established Church of England.
I'm a monarchist because it helps to protect our democracy. Take for example the recent protest on the lawn at parliament. Legally if these people or any of us for that matter wanted to sack the Government before the next election, there is but one way it MAY be possible. And that would be a petition to the Governor General to sack the Government. I remember reading somewhere that the estimated support that the protesters had was 30% of the population. Imagine what the GG would be obliged to do if she received a million signature petition?
I'm surprised no-one tried this approach. It would have been a very interesting approach to test the legitimacy of our democracy.
There needs to be a lot more honesty when it comes to climate change. The Government needs to be telling people how much their plan is going to cost us. We're already hitting $3.30 a litre for 98 and that's before the sweeping commitments Shaw made in Glasgow. So, all up, what is the hit going to be for families and taxpayers who are already battling rapid inflation and a banking system that's entrenching it, rather than mitigating it?
Untangle those points?
'Cost' is 'demand for future energy (and stuff to apply it to)'.
Yet the 'poor' are merely those not getting proxy for? Future energy (and the stuff to apply it to).
Yes, the system is the problem - and if pursued, will exterminate our species. Yes, we could be egalitarian, up to and including completely.
But that won't solve poverty vs climate, and even solving that won't solve overshoot.
Probably less than not being able to get to work or feed your family - or else the long term becomes a bit academic, really. Which is why I'm asking for some actual $$$ figures in terms of additional cost, and not simply Greta-style pathos. Most of us can't pay our bills with that.
Families will care about what their children will face. We will need to deal with the problem and find solutions that address both now and the coming decades. Otherwise it's just families ultimately living at the expense of their children, avoiding inconvenience by piling destruction on their kids.
Don't worry, fossil fuels are still depleting as we speak so if we choose not to transition voluntarily to renewables then it'll happen involuntarily when cost or supply disruption occurs in the near-future. At this point in time it'll be a lot harder for us to do though. It's a classic short-term vs long-term issue.
I've said many times, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
That is why no democracy is doing what is really needed to tackle climate change - any government that attempts it will be voted out and replaced by the opposition who are promising a future of milk and honey.
The only real hope is some technology break through that makes direct CO2 capture and storage 1,000 times cheaper / more effective than it currently is, so that it can be built without collapsing the current world economy.
Voters happy to vote for their own convenience at the expense of the kids and grandkids, but probably in big part because they have not really understood that's what they're doing.
Imagine if Ozone layer destruction from CFCs had largely occurred as an issue in this decade, not the 1970s. Social media and today's far more effective propaganda machines would have rabid denialism in place of the social pressure that was applied and achieved change back then.
In the end, relying on a technological miracle rather than moving to change and face inconvenience now means we levy greater destruction on our younger generations in the coming decades. We'll print trillions to keep share and house prices up, but nothing much to invest in addressing the biggest problem we face.
The other battle raging in the world - on climate change - is now an news afterthought.
Standing Up To Putin Means Ditching Net-Zero
German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock: “We buy 50% of our #coal from Russia. If we exclude Russia from #SWIFT the lights in #Germany will go out.” yeah maybe should have thought of that before shutting down your nuclear power stations - Link
I wonder if Germany has shut down their brown coal (lignite) mines. I think the lignite mines all supplied power stations. I've lost touch with coal mining/energy issues but at least two-four decades ago Poland produced a lot of coal and maybe even sold it to the Germans as it was cheaper to produce than German coal which came predominantly from deep mines. Must have changed substantially if Germany has been buying Russian coal.
Bank run developing in Russia.
The Russians may be ones behind the sudden Crypto buying.
Bitcoin 41,214 +10.02%
Ethereum 2,799.49 +7.40%
XRP 0.7581 +5.31%
Bitcoin Cash 326.53 +7.07%
Litecoin 109.12 +5.98%
Monero 166.16 +10.19%
Putin has unleashed so much desperation for the people in his country that that it pushes them to buy junk.
It would be a good time for the US and EU to ban all Crypto on both continents to prevent Russia from circumventing financial sanctions.
You didn't think through what you're copying did you?
Properties provides shelter and generates it's own cash flow.
They're so real that if you try banging your head on any of it's wall hard enough, it might hurt- that's the real in the estate.
The same cannot be said on internet fantasies like Crypto.
For Australia, the IPCC says they can expect more drought, more fire and more floods, and less snow and less coral. Presently wild weather in southern Queensland and northern NSW is extreme even by their standards. The immediate danger from flooding is rising and still ahead of them this week.
Well this good news as during the last big drought the climate alarmists were predicting that Australia would never again receive substantial rain. At least they only had that part wrong.
www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/horrified-family-left-sitting-on-thei…
Nobody was claiming that. Simple physics means warmer air can hold, then release greater levels of moisture. This leads to a greater likelihood of droughts/ floods rather than the more consistent and predictable weather patterns of the recent past.
This is well understood by anyone with half a brain, which might explain why you deniers find it so hard to accept.
I'm sure that type of rubbish convinces you. I stop reading when I see the word "alarmist".
If I was to describe the earth's relatively recent past you would call me alarmist. CO2 levels have been mush higher, and lower, leading to extremely high and low global temperatures. Human ascent has occurred during a period of relative climate stability.
I wish people like you would would do a little more reading before posting your ill-informed denier nonsense.
colinchch'
State of Climate in 2021_ Extreme events and major impacts _ World Meteorological Organization.pdf
I suggest you read this.
I am a convinced believer in climate change caused by mankind and terrified by it. However this article like so many others, is not persuasive. There is no definition of 'extreme' or 'event'. One person's Mediterranean heat wave is another person happy summer holiday. Given so many countries with so many climate recordings there are bound to be regular unique events - fires, droughts, floods, hurricanes - they are not proof of global warming but simple statistical variation.
More humans lost their lives in extreme weather events 100 years ago (improved weather forecasting) and forest fires were bigger (better fire-fighting), the worst storm in Europe was 1703, etc. What has changed is not the climate but the ability to film the consequences.
Extreme weather events are not persuasive. Never scraping ice off my car last year but needing to do so about 20 times a year when I first came to NZ 18 years ago is persuasive.
If the skeptics have half a brain, the alarmists only have a quarter. As far as climate change is concerned one needs to be more specific on the classes of climate change believers. From the bottom up, extinction rebellion, climate emergency types (i put NZ Greens in this bracket), your average Joe Bloggs following MSM, CC skeptics and then deniers.
He'd dead now but Augie Auer, a meteorologist from the US who regularly appeared on TV once said that a few hundred years ago the average temperature of the planet was three degrees warmer than it was in the 80s, and he questioned what happened then? He said that humanity actually blossomed, from memory life expectancy increased, mortality to disease decreased, food production increased. I guess he was a sceptic.
Augie Auer pointed out the thermal capacity of the oceans is so much larger than the atmosphere; it is only in the last year or two that changes of average ocean temperature have been detected.
That 3 degrees warmer surely was more than a few hundred years ago. In the 18th century they had ice fairs on the Thames; in the 14th century the Viking settlement on Greenland froze to oblivion. Colder is worse than warmer and it can occur much faster (usually after significant volcanic activity).
Look at Monthly Average CO2 recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii and get worried [1965 = 320ppm and now 420ppm]. There is no sign that all our attempts to control greenhouse emissions is having any effect.
Wikipedia has this quote from Augie; "Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.[12]"
Interesting.......
The IPCC is a waste of space - a warmer world - which we are surely heading to - means more rain in places like Africa and Asia and Australia - so greener continents, more trees and grasses and better environment overall for all species -including people. Time to stop the doomsday reporting and provide a balanced picture of the impact of a warmer world
I'm afraid Ukraine will not be the last country on the list; this is just a training exercise.Only a fool would call Putin a fool
Nato airpower should have called his bluff, wiped out the tanks etc; created a no fly zone, rather than consigning Ukraine to it's fate.However he calculated mostly correctly the response he would get, and allowed for it.
I'd be interested to know where the rest of the Russian military is at the moment.
Recall his demands did not stop with Ukraine, he wanted all the eastern Nato members to demilitarise (so he can invade them)
Putin only understands brute force; if he finds mush he'll push on,just as Stalin would, regardless of destruction of life and property or Russian suffering.
All the east European countries were supposed to remain neutral and untouched by NATO. Mainly as a buffer between the west and Russia.
Russia still has strong lingering memories of WW II and how Germany went storming into Russia exactly via those East European countries. If you look at the geography, you'd understand why Ukraine, Belarus and Poland are important to Russia's sense of security.
NOT excusing Putin's actions, but trying to shed some perspective for the Russian POV on why those E European countries are important to Russia.
He wouldn't care if they stayed neutral, even if not friendly to Russia, but for them to outright join NATO and for NATO to extend the offer of membership, it is threatening in Russian eyes.
Sort of like former All Blacks joining the Springboks to play against the All Blacks...?
Invading Ukraine just might turn into Putin's downfall - couldnt happen to a nicer dictator. If he gets away with it then others will follow so its in everyone's interest to ensure he fails.
Keep freezing Russian assets as money always talks - even here in little NZ we need to lock assets up, withdraw funds especially Govt ones and keep up with other countries actions - we are behind the 8 ball at the moment.
I saw one entertaining segment of analysis pointing out that it would be cheaper to use the Russian ruble than toilet paper now in terms of price per sheet.
This is the most united Europe has been since the second world war. They have had enough of Russia and Belarus, they have unleashed something they will not be able to put back into the box.
Agree. That's where I picked up on the Presidents and half his cabinet's religion. Also the Aljezeera reporter, not to far from one of the front lines, speaking to a couple, say <40yrs old. They did not understand how this could happen. I hope that's not the level of the general population's understanding. If so then there's something seriously wrong. I can only put it down to Ukraine's govt. propaganda and Western media, including social media.
Each side is engaged in psy-ops via all available media, and add to that the Fog of War. Far too soon to be definite about anything. Local MSM are simply repeaters, not reporters. There are, unlike Afghanistan, no embeds within battle groups. Everything is a ghastly mixture of opinion, surmise, propaganda and wishful thinking. If 'thinking' it can be said to be.
Three relatively sensible opinion sites:
- Asia Times
- Moon in Alabama
- The Vineyard of the Saker
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.