Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Global economics and finances - impacts  (Read 119951 times)

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #350 on: January 28, 2016, 03:30:51 PM »
An almost perfect storm for Brazil.

Deep recession due to the collapse of commodities and general trade.

Rapidly rising unemployment.

Drought in the country leading to severe water shortages and huge problems in the Amazon.

Massive government corruption scandals ongoing disrupting government.

Zika virus impacting the population and will effect tourism.

The Olympics are here this year and that will truly screw the economy as they are going to lose huge amounts of money.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/27/with_zika_outbreak_brazil_s_slump_is_becoming_a_nightmare.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 14306
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #351 on: February 01, 2016, 02:24:05 PM »
Hedge fund managers in the U.S. are freaking out, while individual investors remain calm.  Make of that what you will.  (But keep any soon-needed savings in cash.  ;) )

Hedge funds reeling from the recent stock market turmoil are rallying around a hot tip: Buy nothing
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2016-01-21/hedge-funds-hot-idea-is-to-retreat
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2530
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #352 on: February 02, 2016, 10:08:55 AM »
Interesting graphics about economy...

It’s time to worry about the economy
http://qz.com/607162
Quote
It’s a funny thing about globalization. It works on both the way up and the way down.

For the last year the US has been an economic bright spot, in stark contrast to once high-flying emerging markets that powered global growth in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

The first two of the so-called BRICs—the formerly fast-growing emerging market nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China—are suffering through downright nasty recessions. China is slowing fast. Outside the emerging markets, Europe inches along. And Japan remains Japan, last we checked, meaning very little growth.

And now the brightness in the US appears to be dimming, at least a bit. The latest benchmark update on the US manufacturing sector shows activity continued to decline in January, marking four straight months of contraction. The strong US dollar—it’s up about 13% against the currencies of major trading partners—is a key culprit.

But the US isn’t alone. China’s manufacturing sector is shrinking, too, leaving us with the troubling specter of the world’s top two manufacturing economies in open retreat.

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #353 on: February 27, 2016, 02:58:42 PM »
Woah!  Doggies!

http://mishtalk.com/2016/02/26/world-trade-plunged-13-8-in-us-dollar-terms/

Quote
The value of goods crossing international borders plunged 13.8% in 2015 according to the Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis’s World Trade Monitor. Much of the slump was due to a slowdown in China and other emerging economies. The start of 2016 sports a similar pattern....

It is going to leave a mark.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2530
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #354 on: February 28, 2016, 10:37:33 PM »
The economic damage from climate change may be more than you think — much more.
https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/economic-damage-climate-change-may-be-more-you-think-%E2%80%94-much-more
Quote
"We estimate that the social cost of carbon is not $37 per ton, as previously estimated, but $220 per ton," said study coauthor Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences.

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2530
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #355 on: March 24, 2016, 09:39:21 AM »
Rockefeller family charity to withdraw all investments in fossil fuel companies
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/23/rockefeller-fund-divestment-fossil-fuel-companies-oil-coal-climate-change
Quote
Started by John D Rockefeller – who made his fortune from oil – the fund singled out ExxonMobil, calling the world’s largest oil company ‘morally reprehensible’
John D Rockefeller, who was the richest person in US history when he died in 1937, made his fortune from Standard Oil a precursor of ExxonMobil.
John D Rockefeller, who was the richest person in US history when he died in 1937, made his fortune from Standard Oil a precursor of ExxonMobil. Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters

Rupert Neate in New York
@RupertNeate

Wednesday 23 March 2016 21.39 GMT
Last modified on Thursday 24 March 2016 00.15 GMT

    Share on Pinterest
    Share on LinkedIn
    Share on Google+

Shares
3,980
Comments
64
Save for later

A charitable fund of the Rockefeller family – who are sitting on a multibillion-dollar oil fortune – has said it will withdraw all its investments from fossil fuel companies.

The Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity set up in 1967 by descendants of John D Rockefeller, said on Wednesday that it would divest from all fossil fuel holdings “as quickly as possible”.

The fund, which was founded by Martha, John, Laurance, Nelson and David Rockefeller, singled out ExxonMobil for particular attention describing the world’s largest oil company as “morally reprehensible”.

John D Rockefeller, who was the richest person in US history when he died in 1937, made his fortune from Standard Oil a precursor of ExxonMobil.

“There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,” the RFF, which has relatively small total holdings of $130m (£92m), said in a statement. “We must keep most of the already discovered reserves in the ground if there is any hope for human and natural ecosystems to survive and thrive in the decades ahead.

“We would be remiss if we failed to focus on what we believe to be the morally reprehensible conduct on the part of ExxonMobil. Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change’s march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change’s destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic’s ice receded.”
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Read more

An Exxon spokesman told CNBC: “It’s not surprising that they’re divesting from the company since they’re already funding a conspiracy against us.” The RFF denied that it was conspiring against Exxon, and a spokesman said the claim was “a complete mischaracterization of our program work”.

The RFF’s accusation of morally reprehensible conduct is in reference to New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s investigation, launched in November, into whether Exxon lied to the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change.

The investigation, which has also been taken up by California’a attorney general, follows reports that internal company documents from the 1980s and 90s show Exxon’s in-house scientists were warning company executives about the dangers of climate change, while Exxon was publicly claiming that climate science was not proven.

At the time, an Exxon spokesman said: “We unequivocally reject the allegations that ExxonMobil has suppressed climate change research.”

The RFF acknowledged that the family has made a lot of money from oil, “but history moves on, as it must”. “Needless to say, the Rockefeller family has had a long and profitable history investing in the oil industry, including ExxonMobil,” it said. “These are not decisions, therefore, that have been taken lightly or without much consideration of their import.”

RFF is not the first Rockefeller family organisation to vow to divest from fossil fuels. Last year the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) said it was withdrawing all of the $45m it had invested in fossil fuels.

However, the much wealthier Rockefeller Foundation, whose endowment tops $4bn, is understood to be opposed to divestment for now.

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #356 on: July 03, 2016, 04:35:15 PM »
Sort of self explanatory I guess

Quote
Brexit is nowhere near the biggest challenge to western economies.....

In July of 2014, we wrote about the huge imbalance with respect to China’s M2 money supply and nominal GDP relative to the US. At the time, China’s M2 money supply was 71% higher than the US but its economy was 56% smaller, which we said was an indication of the overvaluation of the Chinese currency. Since that time, the yuan has fallen by only 6.8% relative to the dollar. We haven’t seen anything yet.

Today, the circumstances have significantly worsened. Money supply has continued to grow faster than GDP. With over $30 trillion of assets in its banking system and an underappreciated non-performing loan problem, we are convinced that China is headed for a twin banking and currency crisis. Money velocity has reached historically low levels which reflects China’s extreme credit imbalance and its crimping impact on its ability to generate future real GDP growth....

That is utterly devastating. It’s what we see in the US, EU and Japan too, but ‘we’ have thus far been able to export our deflation -to an extent- to … China. No more. China has started exporting its own deflation to the west. Beijing MUST devalue its currency anywhere in the range of 30-50% or its export sector will collapse. It is not difficult.

That it will have to achieve this despite the objections of Donald Trump and the IMF is just a minor pain; Xi Jinping has more pressing matters on his mind. Like pitchforks....

The air is leaving the balloon.


https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2016/07/deflation-is-blowing-in-on-an-eastern-trade-wind/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #357 on: July 08, 2016, 04:08:25 PM »
Quote
....But the rationale for this measure is to shore up an unsustainable mercantilist growth model. As many analysts have stressed, China has for years has had investments and exports consist of an unheard of level of over 50% of GDP. China desperately needs instead to have a much larger consumption share of GDP. But in the wake of the criss, it instead ramped up investments that have been mainly funded by borrowing, with the boost in GDP from each dollar of borrowing falling over time. So the investment-driven model is nearing its sell-by date, yet the economic mandarins are doubling down.

And as Evans-Pritchard outlines, the result of this last-ditch effort to preserve Chinese growth will be to kill its export markets. Germany, the world’s other relentless exporter, is achieving a similar result by insisting on running trade surpluses, refusing to fund its counterparts (which is inherent to running trade surpluses) and insisting that the problem is that their partners aren’t competitive enough and inflicting crushing austerity and labor-squeezing policies on them.....

Quote
Factory gate prices within China are falling at a rate of 2.9pc, further amplifying the deflationary impact. Analysts fear that Beijing is engaged is an undeclared policy of beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilism, trying to avert an industrial crisis at home by exporting its overcapacity in steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, plastics, paper, glass, and even solar panels, to the rest for the world.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/china-destabilizes-global-economy-by-exporting-deflation-through-currency-devaluation.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #358 on: July 23, 2016, 06:03:30 PM »
Oh my is this interesting data.

Quote
Something funny happened when I didn’t look: the global trade numbers were adjusted down. By a lot. The post-Financial Crisis recovery in trade is suddenly a heck of a lot less vibrant than it looked. And it has completely stalled out over the past two years....

...Turns out, the recovery of global trade was a lot weaker than the original data had indicated. Today’s WTM level of 133 is where it had first been under the old data in October 2013! Two-and-a-half years of painfully slow growth wiped out in one fell swoop!

So we did something vile. We overlaid the old data and the adjusted data, for all to see. This chart includes the old data released as of July 2015 (blue line) and the new adjusted data released today (red line):....

This goes a long way towards explaining why the global economy seems so mediocre when the news is always so upbeat.





And this is huge.  One cannot overstate how screwed up this is.  You cannot run an economy on overcharging mostly poor people for prescription drugs.

Quote
There’s another aspect to this “perplexing” economy: Pharmaceutical products are the single largest category in US wholesales, and thus in the goods-producing sector. In dollar terms, they account for over 12% of total wholesales. They’re even bigger than groceries. Year-over-year sales have soared 10%, in a sluggish economy, not because of volume increases, but because of price increases.

Yet, drugs are small and expensive, and shipping volume is relatively small. Since much of the wholesale increase came from price increases, shipping volume has been minimally impacted.

But without these soaring drug sales, the remainder of the goods-producing economy (“ex-drugs”) at the wholesale level has been heading south for over two years, including in May. This is reflected in the crummy US transportation data over much of last year and so far this year. The growth in drug sales due to price increases covers up part of the weakness in the goods-producing sector “ex-drugs.” But the freight data, where drugs play a smaller role, bring the weakness of the goods-producing sector “ex-drugs” to the foreground.

http://wolfstreet.com/2016/07/22/global-trade-meets-reality-world-trade-monitor-wtm-adjusted-cass-freight-index/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #359 on: July 24, 2016, 02:27:24 AM »
There’s another aspect to this “perplexing” economy: Pharmaceutical products are the single largest category in US wholesales, and thus in the goods-producing sector. In dollar terms, they account for over 12% of total wholesales. They’re even bigger than groceries. Year-over-year sales have soared 10%, in a sluggish economy, not because of volume increases, but because of price increases.
(My bold)


I believe that groceries have a much lower markup than pharmaceuticals, so if I'm reading this right, the average American family is now paying more for medicine than for food.


This sounds like a dystopian sci-fi plot.
 The Aliens have infected the earth with a killer virus that can only be held in check by the daily ingestion of a substance controlled by the Alien Overlords. Baby's starve as the price of the elixir is increased, until a hero, with natural immunity, arrives and allows himself to be bled out, so that his blood can be used as a vaccine to save the world.


When does our hero arrive?


Or, are these pharmaceuticals being sold to health insurance providers at discounted rates with the highly inflated figures used to justify rate increases whenever the CEO needs another Gulfstream?


Terry

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #360 on: July 24, 2016, 11:21:06 AM »
Terry

Quote
I believe that groceries have a much lower markup than pharmaceuticals, so if I'm reading this right, the average American family is now paying more for medicine than for food.

See the Green Paty Leader, Jill Stein, on how the pharmaceutical companies captured Obamacare. She wiped the floor with Fox. Excellent stuff.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #361 on: July 24, 2016, 08:50:28 PM »
Geoff


I was intimately aware of the horrors of healthcare in America pre ObamaCare. It was one of the reasons for my return to Canada in 2004. If ObamaCare is to be euthanised in the near future, some thought must be given what will replace it.


My heavily insured healthcare costs were my family's largest expense for two years prior to my departure, but I was in very poor health on a number of fronts.


At that time and place medical costs were hiked ~ 400% so that insurance could pay 80%, and still break even. One of my neurologist's used to present a bill that showed not only what the insurance provider billed for an office visit, the 20% co-pay, and also what he billed the provider. IIRC the insurance billed for $200, and paid 80%, or $150. My co-pay was $50 / visit & the doctor was paid $52, by the same company. Each visit cost the insurance company $2.00, which was more than made up for by my premium.


The plan did pay a higher percentage of costs, but only if you agreed to use only the 3d or 4th string doctors that they had on call. One visit to one of these quacks was enough to convince me.


I assume a similar scheme is being run today & that this is the reason for the ridiculous pharmaceutical costs that JimD's post exposed.


As a hasty post script:
One of my Canadian neurologist refused to believe that I could have been billed $10,000 for an IVIG treatment in the States. According to him the serum costs &68.00 per vial and such a markup would be unconscionable. Another neurologist who had interned at Sxxxx Kxxxxxxxx set him straight.


Terry

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #362 on: April 18, 2019, 01:23:54 AM »
Bank of England - Climate change could cause $4 trillion - $20 trillion losses:
https://qz.com/1596486/climate-change-could-cause-20-trillion-in-losses-says-bank-of-england/?utm_source=reddit.com
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4535
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #363 on: April 22, 2019, 11:04:39 PM »
Climate change exacerbates inequality:

"the impact of warming on annual economic growth, which over the course of decades has accumulated robust and substantial declines in economic output in hotter, poorer countries—and increases in many cooler, wealthier countries"

"per capita gross domestic product (GDP) has been reduced 17–31% at the poorest four deciles of the population-weighted country-level per capita GDP distribution, yielding a ratio between the top and bottom deciles that is 25% larger than in a world without global warming. As a result, although between-country inequality has decreased over the past half century, there is ∼90% likelihood that global warming has slowed that decrease"

Open access: read all about it
 
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1816020116

sidd


b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1440
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 1424
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #364 on: May 30, 2019, 08:08:41 PM »
Taking the freedom to x-post this interesting post from Interstitial to give it it's designated home.

This was OT in climate change, the ocean, agriculture and food so I posting my response in who should be democratic nominee for president in 2020
  Note that the financial "bailout" was loans that, overall, were repaid with interest.  The taxpayer made a net profit.  And the world avoided a domino effect of bank failures that would have made the Great Recession look like a picnic.
If all the banks needed were loans the Federal Reserve would have supplied the money and congress would not have been involved. That is what the Federal Reserve does is loan banks money. Banks made a lot of loans to people they knew couldn't afford them. They didn't care if people borrowed too much money because they bundled them up with good loans and sold them on the market as mortgage backed securities. They made more money in fees the more people borrowed. As long as the security didn't go below the original loan amount, its called breaking the buck, the financial institutions were fine. Once it did they were responsible for the difference. The banks knew this mess would hit them so they donated a record amount to politicians the previous election cycle. When it became obvious to wall street that these mortgage backed securities had too many bad loans in them the market turned down and Lehman brothers was the first institution to owe more money on these securities then the company was worth and they went bankrupt. Problem is these mortgage backed securities were repackaged with each repackaging the financial institutions made more money but also became liable if the security broke the buck. Once one firm went down all institutions that made these securities would go bankrupt. The next day congress gets a huge and complex bailout package to vote on that was clearly created long before the previous day. Before congress is allowed to look at the bill they are asked to vote on it without debate. The bailout basically had the banks identify the questionable loans and sell them to Fredie Mac. Fredie Mac is a quasi-government institution and congress footed the bill. That was the troubled asset relief program. While not all of those loans defaulted and some money was recovered by foreclosing.
So far unwinding those bad loans has cost taxpayers 8.5 trillion dollars.
https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/real-cost-2008-recession-12908/
That still makes me angry.
Except for Lehman brothers all the other financial institutions got off with only some increased regulation. They made a profit the following quarter. A short time later congress quietly gutted most of the new rules.
Ironically in anticipation of all this banks pushed for stricter bankruptcy laws for individuals to recover more money
Elizabeth Warren fought the 2005 bankruptcy act for individuals and made a forceful stance for stricter banking regulations knowing that the regulations put in place were insufficient to stop the same thing from happening again. She upset big money fighting for the common person and that is why I think she would make a great president. Unfortunately I doubt she will get the nomination because she pissed off big money.

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 14
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #366 on: June 05, 2019, 07:04:17 PM »
Investment funds are making money by investing in large scale renewable energy projects.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/05/european-fund-manager-raises-e850-million-for-clean-energy-infrastructure/

Quote
London-based fund manager Glennmont Partners announced Tuesday that it had successfully raised €850 million ($957 million) during its Third Fund investing in clean energy infrastructure projects in Europe, the largest amount that has ever been raised for a green energy only fund with a European mandate.

The largest fund managers focusing exclusively on investment in clean energy infrastructure in the world and boasting over €2 billion in assets under management after only 11 years in business, Glennmont Partners has invested in 192 megawatts (MW) of solar projects, 548 MW of wind, and 119 MW of biomass. Formerly BNP Paribas Clean Energy Partners, before a management buyout renamed the company to Glennmont Partners, the team has been working together since 2007.

This Third Fund (Fund III), which originally sought to raise €600 million, reached such a high level through increased interest in sustainable themes among investors and due to the demonstrated success in investment, operations, and divestments in the assets in Fund I and Fund II.

Quote
Further, Fund III will for the first time invest funds into offshore wind projects across the European Economic Area (EEA), in addition to targeting solar PV, onshore wind, bioenergy, and small-scale hydro. Fund III will span ten years and target to-be-built and recently-operational assets with stable, predictable cash yields underscored by regulated and contracted revenues.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« Reply #367 on: June 07, 2019, 01:30:02 AM »
GE invested in coal and natural gas instead of renewables.  How'd that work?

https://electrek.co/2019/06/06/ge-renewable-energy-transition/

Quote
General Electric’s profitability collapse over the past few years can be largely attributed to the company’s inability to judge the accelerating pace of the global energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, a new study claims.

The analysis comes from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which says that “GE made a massive bet on the future of natural gas and thermal coal, and lost,” concluding:


GE destroyed an almost unprecedented US$193 billion (bn)1 or 74% of its market capitalization over 2016-2018.

IEEFA acknowledges a number of “other management missteps,” but claims that “this value destruction was driven in large measure by the collapse of the new thermal power construction market globally—a collapse which caught GE entirely by surprise.”

GE’s investors have lost billions as well, as the formerly most valuable company in the world now has a current market capitalization of $87 billion. IEEFA hits another few key points early in its study:

GE has lost more than a half-trillion dollars in market value since its all-time high of $600bn, back in 2000.

Much of GE’s precipitous drop came in 2016-2018, when it badly misjudged the acceleration of the energy transition post-Paris Agreement.

GE assumed wrongly that demand for natural gas and coal would continue to track global economic growth.

The full report delves into the timeline of how GE’s Power division doubled down on natural gas and coal, and how quickly it fell apart within the past three years, before concluding that global investments must be rapidly and dramatically aligned to match the goals of the Paris Agreement.