BOE HEAD: PENSION FUNDS COULD BE HIT BY WORTHLESS FOSSIL FUELS!?!?January 9, 2020
T.M. spotted this one and deserves a big "thank you" for passing it along, because the Bank of England's Mark Carney is at it again, pushing the "climate change op" as Catherine Austin Fitts called it during her annual quarterly wrap-up with me just a few days ago. (For those interested, her wrap-up is available to her subscribers on her website, www.solari.com, and also to our subscribers in the audio cast section of our members' area.) But as T.M. put it, what does the Bank of England know?
Now, beyond the climate change op, there's something in this article that caught T.M.'s eye, and caught mine as well:
Bank of England governor Mark Carney has warned pension funds they could be stung as fossil fuels investments become “worthless” over time.
Carney said in an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme on Monday that global targets to reduce emissions would render many fossil fuel companies and their assets worthless, as people ditch ‘dirty’ energy in favour of renewables.
“Up to 80% of coal assets will be stranded, up to half of developed oil reserves,” Carney said. “A question for every company, every financial institution, every asset manager, pension fund, or insurer: What’s your plan?”
Carney said pension funds “could make [the] argument” to clients that it is better to ditch fossil fuels now, even as returns remain attractive.
“They need to make the argument, to be clear about why is that going to be the case if a substantial proportion of those assets are going to be worthless,” the outgoing Bank of England governor said. (Emphasis added)
Now, beyond the shriek-o-meter references to the climate-apocalypse-op, there's something else going on here in my high octane speculative opinion. Filter out those references, and the real story is that the head of the Bank of England is really saying: drop your fossil fuels corporate stocks and bonds now, while you can, because eventually those assets will be worthless.
It's the "worthless" part that caught my eye, for one cannot render stocks and bonds "worthless" based on questionable, if not bad, science, mere propaganda, and a pouting, screaming, preachy and sadly weaponized Swedish adolescent girl. There has to be a reality driving any such assessment of price and value, and the key hint in the article is the reference to "renewable" energy sources, which might more accurately be termed "virtually inexhaustible" energy resources.
Thus far, these have focused on two: solar, and fusion, and neither have thus far delivered anywhere near the results needed to sustain the energy needs of the planet. Or so we're told. By the same token, as one contemplates the energy needs just to mine cryptocurrencies alone, we're fast approaching that Kardashev scale class I civilization needs where the mass-energy conversion of an entire planet is needed to sustain civilization. Fusion and solar might be able to do that, pending success of current fusion reactor plans, like Itar in France, or pending the success of plans to harvest solar energy in space and beam it to the Earth.
So we're left with two ways of interpreting Mr. Carney's remarks: (1) it is an op, and nothing more, one designed to stampede investors into massive sell-offs of fossil fuels securities, so that the banksters can snap up those assets on the cheap, or (2) "something" is coming by way of breakthroughs in exotic energy technologies, and the banksters know it, and are trying to head off potential financial disasters by giving a heads up ahead of time in order to make the financial transition away from fossil fuels smoother.
Given the announcements in the past few years - think only of Lockheed-Martian's... er, I mean, Lockheed-Martin's... announcement a few years ago of a fusion reactor that can fit on the back of a truck, a reactor which, incidentally looks suspiciously like Philo Farnsworth's plasmators and fusor patents of the 1960s - my money is on option number two...
See you on the flip side...