Home Blog Page 31

How Close the Human Race Came to Ending Life on Earth Every Year Since 1947

By
-
Source: Ian Tyas / Hulton Archive via Getty Images

Nuclear war and climate change are the main dangers our world currently faces. The probability of those catastrophes actually happening is measured by the Doomsday Clock, which reflects how close we are to destroying our world. The closer the clock gets to midnight, the more dire the situation is. If the clock hits midnight, well, that means the world has ended. Thankfully, we are not at that point yet, though we are closer than ever. 

The Doomsday Clock was created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, founded by Albert Einstein and scientists who worked on the atomic bomb in the Manhattan project. It is set annually. For the past two years, the clock has been set at 100 seconds to midnight.

24/7 Wall St. reviewed the timeline of the Doomsday Clock to list the number of minutes and seconds to midnight for each year since 1947, the first year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit science and global security organization, began using the clock. We included the number of nuclear tests conducted each year, from the nonprofit arms control group The Arms Control Association. 

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists first emphasized the threat of nuclear annihilation as East and West nations raced to build atomic weapons after World War II. Over the ensuing years, the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia) took steps to pull back from the nuclear brink. The best years, when the clock was furthest away from midnight, were after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, from 1991 through 1994. (This is what a nuclear attack would do to the world’s major cities.)

More recently, the dangers from North Korea and Iran developing their nuclear program have been affecting the clock position. In the past months, too, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been threatening to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine as Moscow suffers setbacks in its invasion of the country. 

In 2007, the Bulletin scientists also warned for the first time of the damage climate change could inflict on the planet. In 2015, the clock moved closer to midnight, from five to three minutes to midnight, largely because of climate change. (Here are countries facing the worst climate emergencies.)

Not all the major events that have affected the clock’s position have to do with nuclear proliferation, yet they are just as dangerous to humanity’s and the planet’s safety. For example, as COVID-19 spread across the globe and a pandemic declared in 2020, the clock was advanced from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight, where it remains since. 

Some years were actually good in terms of human achievement. In 1969, the U.S. landed a man on the moon, and the clock went from seven minutes to midnight to 10. The clock has not had a good year since 2010.

Click here to see how close the human race came to ending life on earth on every year since 1947.

Saudi Aramco just made enough money to fund half of UN climate commitment

By
-
Source: ergsart / Flickr

As the United Nations’ COP27 climate conference begins in Egypt next week, the search is on among some African nations and poorer countries for the $100 billion in “loss and damage” funding promised to them by wealthy countries by 2020, and now delayed until 2025.

Few wealthy nations, including the U.S., feel flush enough to commit any money this time around, especially with inflation soaring and energy prices at crisis levels. Indeed, only the oil sector seems to be enjoying this year, as profits and dividends leap with oil prices.

Exxon Mobil $XOM made almost $20 billion in profits in the past three months, and Saudi Aramco, the oil company of Saudi Arabia, astonished earlier this week with third-quarter profit of $42 billion. Half of that will go right back to the government in the form of a dividend.

No doubt these numbers are why President Joe Biden and the leaders of other nations are suddenly talking about windfall taxes on oil companies again. As bad an idea as taxing companies for success is, during a week in which world leaders will gather to bemoan their collective lack of progress in reducing fossil fuel emissions it is sure to be a hot topic in Sharm El-Sheikh.

Saudi Aramco’s third-quarter profit alone could pay almost half of Africa’s needs to fight a coming disaster it is not responsible for. We don’t expect any miracles, and we do think this talk of windfall taxes will blow over after U.S. midterm elections next week. But oil giants aren’t doing themselves any favors by standing on the sidelines as these numbers roll in. A more creative approach to the energy transition is required.

More insights below . . . .

Zeus: Five things that could save COP27 from impending failure

. . . . The annual United Nations climate summit begins next week in Egypt against a backdrop of a cascading climate crises around the world, with expectations for a breakthrough at the lowest levels in years, thanks to soaring energy prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. David Callaway looks for clues on how delegates might surprise with a deal or two that could reset the stage for 2023, from new relations between China and the U.S. to a clever financing plan to deliver funding to Africa nations and others facing global warming destruction. . . .

Read the full Zeus column

A selection of this week’s subscriber-only insights

. . . . Looks like it ain’t going to be pretty for Wall Street’s big finance firms such as BlackRock, State Street and large banks if the GOP takes over the House (and, maybe, the Senate). That’s because Republicans have promised to go after funders who take ESG into account in making their investment decisions. Read more here. . . .

. . . . A real threat or pre-election saber-rattling? That’s President Joe Biden’s apparent threat to impose a windfall tax on oil companies, most of whom are raking in record profits due to the Ukraine war-induced rise in energy prices. We’ll read the tea leaves. Read more. . . .

. . . . In the past year or so, several huge offshore wind projects in U.S. waters got the green light, with one just announced in the Gulf. But news items have been trickling in lately that this or that offshore wind project is stalled or under threat. What’s going on? Inflation. Supply chain woes, and more — all of which will delay deployment. Read more here. . . .

Editor’s picks: Offshore wind farms set for Gulf of Mexico

Two sites chosen for Gulf of Mexico offshore wind farms

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management this week identified the first two areas for offshore wind development in the Gulf of Mexico, reports NOLA.com. The two areas, a 174,000-acre area south of Lake Charles, La. and a 508,000-acre area near Galveston, Texas, have the potential to generate enough power for almost 3 million homes. That’s enough electricity for the combined populations of Houston, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, the report says. BOEM Director Amanda Lefton said in a statement, “These two wind energy areas represent exciting progress toward having the first offshore wind lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico, where there is a mature industry base and the know-how to advance energy development in the OCS. The Region can play a central role in our nation’s clean energy transition to support good paying jobs, fight climate change.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures expands focus on adaptation strategies

Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the climate-tech investment firm started by Bill Gates, will now expand its focus from developing climate mitigation strategies to providing more support for companies working on climate change adaptation. CNBC reports from a recent Breakthrough Energy summit that Eric Toone, one-half of the Breakthrough Energy Ventures investment committee, told attendees that while BEV’s principal focus will continue to be mitigation, “we will now work on adaptation as part of our portfolio — adaptation to some of the most severe consequences of elevated levels of greenhouse gasses and global warming.” According to the report, Toone said mitigation strategies alone aren’t enough: “It’s time to start accepting reality and that we’re not going to be able to do this fast enough, the ship is too big, it’s too hard to steer.”

Effects of climate change on the natural rate of interest

This working paper from the European Central Bank titled The Effects of Climate Change on the Natural Rate of Interest: A Critical Survey reviews the literature about the impact of climate change on the natural rate of interest (r*), an important yardstick for monetary policy. In the abstract, the authors write: “Economic and financial developments can lower r* in scenarios with increasing climate-related damages and uncertainty that reduce productivity growth and raise precautionary savings. Instead, in scenarios that assume innovations and investments induced by transition policies, r* could be affected positively. Orderly climate policies have a pivotal role by facilitating the transition to a carbon-neutral economy and supporting a steady investment flow. We discuss the main models used to simulate the effects of climate change on r* and summarize the outcomes. The downward effects of climate change on r* can be substantial, even taking into account the high degree of uncertainty about the outcomes. Moreover, the downward pressure on r* will further challenge monetary policy in the long run, by limiting its policy space.” Authors: Francesco Paolo Mongelli, European Central Bank, Goethe University Frankfurt; Wolfgang Pointner, Oesterreichische Nationalbank; Jan Willem van den End, De Nederlandsche Bank.

Words to live by . . . .

“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering.” — Harvard University Research Professor Dr. John P. Holdren.

By David Callaway

Zeus: Five things that could save COP27 from impending failure

By
-
Source: Maxiphoto / iStock via Getty Images

(David Callaway is founder and Editor-in-Chief of Callaway Climate Insights. He is the former president of the World Editors Forum, Editor-in-Chief of USA Today and MarketWatch, and CEO of TheStreet Inc.)

NEW YORK (Callaway Climate Insights) — The cascading crisis that is global warming hasn’t spun out many moments of hope and optimism this year, and as we head into the United Nations’ COP27 climate summit in Egypt next week that doesn’t seem set to change.

But sometimes when expectations are at their worst, the unthinkable happens and someone or group rises to the occasion. Here are five things to watch for that could turn the meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh from a bust into a beacon of new international cooperation and reset the battle against global warming for 2023…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

How King Charles stole COP27 and saved Britain

By
-
Source: Chris Jackson / Chris Jackson Collection via Getty Images

In today’s issue:

— King Charles was told not to attend COP27 in Egypt. So he brought it to Buckingham Palace.
— Lula’s victory in Brazil may have just saved the planet; Brazil stocks leap
— Blackstone’s deal to buy Emerson climate tech unit the largest Wall Street buyout in months
— Boris Johnson may be down but he’s not out. Look for him in Sharm El-Sheikh next week.
— ‘Battery Belt’ takes shape in U.S. midwest as Biden team hammers home climate plan

Only kings and queens can get away with this. Britain’s King Charles, banned from attending next week’s global climate summit in Egypt because of his new regal duties, instead will bring COP27 to Buckingham Palace, in one stroke creating the hottest ticket on the planet this week for traveling delegates and world leaders.

While we’re sure Sharm El-Sheikh has its beachy charms (for a police state, that is), the opportunity for the business and political elite to have a drink with the new king at his palace while on the way to the summit will be too hard to resist. And in many ways could upstage Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s efforts to promote Egypt as a climate pioneer.

COP27 was struggling anyway. No country has lived up to its promises since last year’s summit in Glasgow. Nobody’s interested in ponying up the $100 billion they promised to help poor countries deal with global warming. Even Greta Thunberg isn’t going, citing al-Sisi’s, um, lack of interest in any sort of protests.

But now 200 lucky delegates will be able to hobnob with the new Climate King while on their way, and by extension come under new pressure to make progress next week. Brazil’s election victory by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, with his pledge to halt deforestation of the Amazon Basin, has given the climate movement a much-needed boost ahead of a summit no one was looking forward to.

Now King Charles, trapped in his castle by decades of ridiculous royal tradition, has found a unique way to place his stamp on it, and maybe saved Britain’s climate chops in the process.

More insights below . . . .

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

The Government Is Worried About These Biological Weapons

By
-
Source: brackish_nz / iStock via Getty Images

Russia accused the United States of secretly supporting a biological weapons program in Ukraine at the U.N. Security Council meeting in March. The U.S. strongly denied the claims. There were concerns this would be used as a pretext for Russia’s own use of chemical or biological warfare in Ukraine. Since then, the Kremlin has continued to spread such claims — but provided no proof — culminating last month in Russia requesting a formal hearing of violations of the U.N. Biological Weapons Convention

The convention, which went into effect in 1975, prohibits the development, production, stockpiling or otherwise acquisition of biological weapons. Nearly universally adopted, 184 countries signed the agreement – and for good reason. 

Biological weapons are designed and used to spread pathogens or toxins that can harm or kill humans, animals or plants. The consequences of their use can be severe and unpredictable, potentially resulting not only in illness and loss of life across populations, but also food shortages, environmental catastrophe, economic harm, and widespread fear. 

Not confined to national borders, these effects could spread beyond their intended target and lead to global devastation. 

Still, the international ban on biological weapons offers no guarantee of compliance. A report issued by the U.S. State Department as recently as 2019 raised concerns that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia – all parties to the BWC – are potentially flouting some of the terms of the convention. Some of these countries are recognized to be some of the most corrupt in the world. 

Non-state actors, including terrorist groups, could also potentially employ the use of biological weapons. In 2001, letters laced with anthrax were sent through the U.S. mail, infecting nearly two dozen people and killing five. The suspected perpetrator of what is remembered as the worst biological attack in U.S. history was a biodefense researcher with the U.S. government who took his own life before he was brought up on charges. 

Government organizations, including the Department of Defense and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still consider biological weapons a potential threat to the United States. Using data from government reports and medical journals, 24/7 Wall St. identified the 25 biological weapons the U.S. government is worried about. 

The weapons on this list are ordered in terms of their priority classification by the CDC – from third highest to highest. The highest priority bioweapons are those that are easiest to transmit and have the highest potential for public harm and social disruption. (Also see, the world’s most dangerous chemical weapons.)

Click here to see which biological weapons the government is worried about.

Click here to see our detailed methodology.

Brazil elected a leftist president on Sunday but they also elected a friend of climate change

By
-

(Michael Molinski is a senior economist at Trendline Economics. He’s worked for Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo, and previously as a foreign correspondent and editor for Bloomberg News and MarketWatch.)

RIO DE JANEIRO (Callaway Climate Insights) — I first met Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva when he was campaigning for president in 1994. As a reporter for Bloomberg, I sat with him on a lawn chair atop his campaign van, which he drove across Sao Paulo blasting his campaign speeches through big speakers. He went on to lose that election before he was eventually elected president in 2002.

I found him to be personable, passionate, honest and had a genuine interest in improving the economic and social conditions of Brazilians. And I continued to have that opinion of Lula during his years as president.

Brazilians have elected the former president to replace far-right incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro. But they also elected a friend of climate change.

For Brazilians, their vote could not be more stark between two wide-reaching political and economic candidates. And for the rest of the world, the election also meant a choice between a defender of the environment, Lula, and a destroyer of the environment, Bolsonaro…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

‘Policy problem from hell’ takes a back seat in midterm elections

By
-
Source: rarrarorro / iStock via Getty Images

(Bill Sternberg is a veteran Washington journalist and former editorial page editor of USA Today.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Callaway Climate Insights) — Amid an unceasing barrage of extreme weather events in the United States and abroad, and increasingly dire warnings about the impact of global warming, you’d think climate change would be near the top of most voters’ minds as the midterm elections approach next week.

You’d be wrong.

Among registered voters, global warming ranked 24th in importance out of 29 issues listed in an April report by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Other surveys, conducted more recently, similarly show climate change trailing well behind such dinner-table concerns as the economy, inflation and health care.

All the polls show a stark, almost unbelievable, partisan divide over the importance of climate change …

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

By David Callaway

How Much Land in Each State Is Owned by the Government

By
-
Source: SimonSkafar / iStock via Getty Images

The federal government does not have an equal footprint in each state. In some states, less than 1% of land is federally owned and managed, while in others, over half of the land is. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the Congressional Research Service’s February 2020 report “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data” to determine how much land the federal government owns in every state. Land ownership estimates by federal agency and total federal land ownership are as of 2018, the most recent year available. Data on the federal government employment as a share of total employment by state are from the Current Employment Statistics program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are as of 2019.

It is important to note that the vast majority of federal land — over 96% — falls under the purview of one of only five agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Department of Defense. For the purposes of this story, only lands owned by these five agencies were considered. 

Of those five federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management owns the most land, at 244.4 million acres, followed by the U.S. Forest Service, which manages 192.9 million acres. Federal lands are largely concentrated in the West, with only about 10% of federal land located east of the Mississippi River. 

While it is far from the largest federal landholder — controlling about 80 million acres — the National Park Service manages the lands many Americans are most likely to be familiar with. The NPS ensures the preservation of 62 national parks and hundreds of other natural and historic attractions in the United States for the enjoyment of the public. Due in large part to international tourist destinations like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone, U.S. parks attract more than 330 million visitors annually. These are the best national parks to visit in the fall. 

Having large swaths of land owned by the federal government is not necessarily indicative of a large federal presence overall, such as government offices and services. In fact, in many of the states where the U.S. government owns the largest share of total land, a relatively small share of the overall workforce is employed by federal agencies.  Here is a look at the states where the most people work for the government.

Click here to see how much land the government owns in every state and what it’s used for.

Lines drawn for epic battle over new climate reporting rules

By
-
Source: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images News via Getty Images

As politicians jockey for the limelight at the upcoming COP27 United Nations climate summit in Egypt, regulators and corporate lawyers are gearing up for the biggest climate battle of 2023 — Scope 3 emissions.

The technical name for indirect emissions a company gets from its supply chain vendors — which can often be a vast majority of its emissions — Scope 3 reporting threatens to divide the U.S. and Europe at a time when a global energy crisis and increasing environmental disasters are surging.

U.S. companies have been pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission hard to remove Scope 3 from its new climate reporting rules, which could still come out by the end of this year, but likely next. Meanwhile, the International Sustainability Standards Board voted last week to include Scope 3 emissions in its requirements, albeit with lots of exemptions and extensions.

How Gary Gensler and the SEC move on this will be the corporate climate reporting story of the year. It is likely, under all this pressure, that the SEC will include Scope 3 in some very limited format, declaring victory yet giving everybody an out in some way. That would at least align with the ISSB. But some companies aren’t waiting around to find out. Apple $AAPL this week, for example, said it will press its vendors to decarbonize by 2030. General Motors $GM said it will transition entirely to renewable energy by 2035.

At this stage in the war against global warming, a year of litigation is the last thing we need, even though it’s certain to happen either way the SEC rules. In that case, Gensler & Co. could dramatically cement U.S. leadership on climate finance in the second half of President Joe Biden’s term with a bold decision to include Scope 3, whether it is difficult to comply with or not.

More insights below . . . .

Clean-energy stocks rally hinges on Democrats retaining Senate

. . . . A unique and unexpected correlation between clean energy stocks and political betting markets this year is raising the stakes for the Democrats in their battle to retain control of the U.S. Senate in midterm elections in two weeks, at least as far as investors are concerned, writes Mark Hulbert. While conventional wisdom is that the midterms will lead to the usual Capitol Hill gridlock, Hulbert finds an unexplainable tie between that Democratic control and the fortunes of clean energy shares, which have been on a rally in the past few weeks. But in his own explanatory fashion, he shows how the statistics line up to support the green investor case for a Democratic win on Nov. 7. . . .

Read the full column

A selection of this week’s subscriber-only insights

. . . . Amid the stories of horror and fear (nuclear fallout, anyone?) from the Ukraine war comes a bit of good news: The energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion is likely to speed up rather than slow down the global transition away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner technologies like wind, solar and electric vehicles, according to the world’s leading energy agency. We look at the evidence. . . .

. . . . Oh, the irony. While Big Oil puts big bucks behind Republican candidates, word comes that consumers in one of the GOP bastions, Texas, have saved $28 billion on their energy bills in the past 12 years because of renewables. And a second irony: A large proportion of renewable energy installations are in red states. Something is screwy. Read more here. . . .

. . . . It’s kinda obvious: The same skill set that enables oil companies to set up offshore oil rigs can be used to build and service offshore wind farms. Now a report by research and consultancy group Wood Mackenzie points to further synergy — that oil companies will need to transform into renewable companies as the energy transition continues. We look at the report. . . .

. . . . Britain has a new prime minister. What will the arrival of Rishi Sunak mean for Britain’s climate efforts, which saw somewhat of a downturn under the more right-wing Liz Truss? Overall the forecast is good; meanwhile, he faces a population that is, in general, supportive of renewables, though battered by the current energy crisis. Read more here. . . .

Editor’s picks: Record growth for renewables and EVs

Small modular reactors could transform old US coal towns

The advent of small modular reactors (SMRs) could be a big win for utilities and communities if the new type of reactor can help reincarnate coal-fired power plants, Siri Hedreen writes in a post for S&P Global Market Intelligence this week. According to the report, the opportunity to bring new energy investment to coal communities arose Oct. 24 at two nuclear energy events hosted by the American Nuclear Society and the Atlantic Council. Hedreen says a recent U.S. Department of Energy study identified over 250 GW of coal units, operating and retired, that could be converted into nuclear power plants. The study, based on NuScale Power Corp.’s SMR design, also estimated each conversion would add about 650 jobs to the host community.  Panelists said building a nuclear power plant in an old coal town has advantages, and the SMRs, with a smaller footprint, could be installed as stand-alone units, powering a single manufacturing facility or in small clusters as a grid-scale power plant.

Apple calls on global supply chain to decarbonize by 2030

Apple is asking its suppliers to step up efforts to stem their greenhouse gas emissions as the tech giant eyes its 2030 value chain decarbonization goals. Apple $AAPL also announced this week some clean energy and climate-related investments and projects. The company said in a statement that it will evaluate the work of its major manufacturing partners to decarbonize their Apple-related operations — including running on 100% renewable electricity — and will track yearly progress. “Apple has been carbon neutral for its global corporate operations since 2020, and is laser-focused on its ambitious goal to become carbon neutral across its entire global supply chain and the life cycle of every product,” according to the statement. Apple also announced investments in renewable energy in Europe, partnerships to support businesses transitioning to clean energy, and new support for projects which it says will “advance natural carbon removal and community-driven climate solutions.”

Digging deep for cleantech

Global material consumption has grown significantly over the past few decades, and almost every building and device contains some amount of metal. In a special report, All the Metals We Mined in 2021: Visualized, Govind Bhutada and Miranda Smith detail all 2.8 billion tonnes of metals mined in 2021 and highlights each metal’s largest end-use, using data from the United States Geological Survey. Click here to see the full report and detailed visualization. They report global production of both iron ore and aluminum has more than tripled relative to the mid-1990s. Other metals, including copper and steel, have also seen significant consumption growth. “Today, economies are not only growing and urbanizing but also adopting mineral-intensive clean energy technologies, pointing towards further increases in metal production and consumption.” In terms of growth, they note, clean energy technology metals stand out. “For example, lithium production has more than doubled since 2016 and is set to ride the boom in EV battery manufacturing. Over the same period, global rare earth production more than doubled, driven by the rising demand for magnets.”

Words to live by . . . .

“How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! To behold this alone is worth the pains of any excursion a thousand times over.” — John Muir

By David Callaway

The 13 Most Destructive Wildfires in US History

By
-
Source: usdagov / Flickr

Wildfires have ravaged the United States for centuries, and climate change experts project they will only worsen with global warming. In the course of history, wildfires have caused massive destruction — whether in the countryside or major cities. 

Since 2000, an average of 70,072 wildfires a year have burned an average of 7.0 million acres. In the 1990s, the average acreage burned was less than half, at 3.3 million, though the average of annual wildfires was higher, at 78,600. In 2021, a reported 59,000 wildfires burned just over 7.1 million acres. (These are the worst climate related disasters since 2010.)

Even though the current figure might seem high, and it is, the National Interagency Coordination Center notes that the number of annual wildfires has actually decreased over the past 30 years. However, in this same time, the number of acres affected annually has generally increased. Ultimately, the data points to less fires, but with more severe impact.

To determine the worst wildfires in U.S. history, 24/7 Wall St. referenced Wikipedia for historical data on wildfires within the United States. Wildfires are ranked by the size of these wildfires in total acreage.

Recent years have been especially destructive for the West Coast, but the worst wildfires in U.S. history are also mostly in the West, but also the Midwest and South. (This is how much of every state has burned in wildfires.)

Different parts of the country do not necessarily carry the same risk of experiencing a fire hazard. In fact, according to the NICC, more wildfires occur in the East, which includes central states, but the wildfires in the West are larger and burn more acreage. In 2021, just over 23,000 wildfires burned 6.2 million acres in the West, compared with the over 35,000 fires that burned just under 1.0 million acres in the East.

Here’s a look at the 13 most destructive wildfires in US history:

1...303132...69Page 31 of 69

Popular Posts

© 2024 24/7 Wall St. and Callaway Climate Insights