theAnalysis.news

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/federal-reserve-is-throwing-workers-out-of-work-to-save-rich\/#arve-youtube-mh6nixxhkca63eaa31f73960592471490","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/MH6NiXxHkCA?feature=oembed&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"PERI Inflation Special Part 2 - Gerald Epstein","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Gerald-Epstein-2.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-02-13T15:45:00+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Economists Gerald Epstein and Aaron Medlin's data shows the paradox of ignoring employment and choosing to throw workers out of work has persisted over time at the Federal Reserve. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusic A transcript will be arriving shortly"} Economists Gerald Epstein and Aaron Medlin’s data shows the paradox of ignoring employment and choosing to throw workers out of work has persisted over time at the Federal Reserve. .kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_9e9c23-37 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Federal Reserve is Throwing Workers Out of Work to Save Rich No Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin  Monopoly Power vs Democracy – Matt Stoller  How to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – Pollin Ukraine War & Pandemic Caused More Inflation Than Gov. Spending – Wilkerson The Fed Attacks the Working Class – Robert Pollin Rising Interest Rates Intended to Create Unemployment – Bob Pollin Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music A transcript will be arriving shortly. Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",o):document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("action",o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook("action",o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook("filter",o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+"_"+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),"filter"==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}}); Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); “Gerald Epstein received his Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University and is a Professor of Economics and a founding Co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). He has published widely on a variety of progressive economic policy issues, especially in the areas of central banking and international finance. He is the author, most recently, of The Political Economy of Central Banking: Contested Control and the Power of Finance (Edward Elgar Press, 2019), and What’s Wrong with Modern Money Theory? A Policy Critique (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). Epstein is also the editor or co-editor of many books, including The Political Economy of International Finance in an Age of Inequality: Soft Currencies, Hard Landings (Edward Elgar Press, 2018), The Handbook of the Political Economy of Financial Crises (with Martin H. Wolfson, Oxford University Press, 2013), and Financialization and the World Economy (Edward Elgar Press, 2004). He is also a long-time member of the Center for Popular Economics.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/honest-government-ad-aukus\/#arve-youtube-1oduug1amnm63eaa32084577809655874","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/1oduuG1aMnM?iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"Honest Government Ad | AUKUS","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/AUKUS.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-02-13T12:20:26+00:00","description":"The Australien Government has made an ad for its new AUKUS military alliance, and it\u2019s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on October 2, 2021. This video was made by The Juice Media and is republished with permission. You can find their work he"} The Australien Government has made an ad for its new AUKUS military alliance, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on October 2, 2021. This video was made by The Juice Media and is republished with permission. You can find their work here: https://www.youtube.com/thejuicemedia, and you can support them on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/TheJuiceMedia .kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_51a62d-6b .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Honest Government Ad | AUKUS Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange Honest Government Ad | Visit Western Australia Juice Media Satire: Australian “Values” News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice Media Juice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy” Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen Donate Subscribe Music Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_2" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/the-false-promise-of-carbon-capture-and-storage\/#arve-youtube-x81d0gj05m863dd36cc761f3701964518","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/x81d0gJ05M8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanalysis.news&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1","name":"The False Promise of Carbon Capture and Storage","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Bruce-Robertson-1.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-02-03T11:30:40+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Why net zero emissions by 2050 cannot be attained if carbon capture and storage is used to pump more oil and gas out of the ground. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Bruce Robertson, energy analyst at IEEFA. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusic Talia Baroncelli Hi, I'm Talia Baroncelli, and you're wat"} Why net zero emissions by 2050 cannot be attained if carbon capture and storage is used to pump more oil and gas out of the ground. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Bruce Robertson, energy analyst at IEEFA. .kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_dacb70-53 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} The False Promise of Carbon Capture and Storage Exposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve Keen Navy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry Wilkerson State of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital Enclosures Real Climate Solutions are No Mystery – Pollin How to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – Pollin Debunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy… A Warning From Chomsky and Ellsberg Biden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob Pollin Progressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing Country The Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell it Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine A Dire Warning About the End of Human Civilization Nationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob Pollin Fossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4 Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change Humanity will not be saved by promises COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2 COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2 House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil Executives Stop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob Pollin Biden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob Pollin A Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4 Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC Author A Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is Inevitable Not Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music Talia Baroncelli Hi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Bruce Robertson to speak about carbon capture. But first, if you enjoy this content, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button as well as the subscribe button. I’ll be back in a bit. Joining me now is Bruce Robertson. He is an energy analyst at the IEEFA [Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis] and is joining me now today to speak about carbon capture. Thanks so much for joining me, Bruce. Bruce Robertson Thank you very much, Talia. Talia Baroncelli Why don’t we start talking about the history of carbon capture technology and how it first developed? Bruce Robertson Well, the fascinating thing about carbon capture and storage is it originally started in the 1970s. Back in the 1970s, climate change really wasn’t much of an issue apart from with some scientists. As far as the social issue goes, it really wasn’t until the 2000s that we saw climate change become a major issue. It started originally as a production technique for getting more oil out of depleted oil and gas wells. In other words, oil and gas wells that had reached the end of their life, what they did was they pumped carbon dioxide underground, and they forced more oil and gas out of the other end, and it was collected by a well. So it was a method called enhanced oil recovery in those days. Then in a neat trick of rebranding, the oil and gas industry named it the more climate-friendly sort of moniker, carbon capture and storage. So originally, it was just an oil and gas production technique. Talia Baroncelli Okay, so speaking about how they were rebranding it, could we potentially say that it’s become a form of greenwashing? Specifically referring to one of the reports you co-authored recently in September called The Carbon Capture Crux, where you speak about how approximately 73% of carbon capture storage capacity actually goes towards enhanced oil recovery. Bruce Robertson Yeah, it is still mainly a method of producing more emissions. I think that’s really the key point. I mean, if you use it to produce more oil and gas, that oil and gas end up getting burnt and producing more emissions. The primary use of carbon capture and storage as it stands today is an emissions production technique effectively. But if we look at where the industry is going, it is actually looking more at pure carbon capture and storage where it doesn’t use it for enhanced oil recovery. It is looking to try and decarbonize what they term the difficult-to-decarbonize industries, such as steel and cement. Steel probably is less of a difficult industry to decarbonize now because the Swedes are being pretty successful with their hydrogen-based steel-making technique called the HYBRIT technique. Cement still is a difficult industry to decarbonize, and obviously, it’s a very large global industry. Talia Baroncelli How expensive is it to actually do this carbon capture, storage, and sequestration? I guess that would depend on the different techniques that are used and what exactly is being processed and stored. Bruce Robertson Yeah, look in gas– if we have a look at the different types of carbon capture and storage, it really is not just one industry. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. If we have a look at the different types, the most common types that are used today are on gas plants, gas processing plants. When gas is produced, you can’t have too much carbon dioxide in the methane stream. Methane is what you actually burn in your gas cooker or whatever. It’s actually methane, what they term gas. They need to get the carbon dioxide out of that because if there’s too much carbon dioxide in with the methane, it doesn’t burn very easily, and that creates problems for users of the product. So they remove the carbon dioxide. That form of removal is very common. It’s been around a long time because they have to do it to make the product and sell gas. If we look at removing carbon dioxide from power plants, which is what a lot of people assume carbon capture and storage is all about, that’s far more difficult. It’s far more difficult because the stream of carbon dioxide is more diluted, so it’s more expensive. What it does is it makes the power that’s produced at the back end of the plant very, very expensive. Apart from that, it really hasn’t been very successful at actually doing what it’s meant to do. We studied 13 flagship projects in this area, across the board, across all these industries, the gas industry, the power production industry, and others, and we found that only three have performed roughly how they’re meant to. Three had totally failed, pretty much, and seven had underperformed. When they had underperformed, they hadn’t underperformed by typically 10% or 20%; they had underperformed by typically 40% to 50%. They really did not do what they were meant to do– most of the majority of these projects that have been done in the past, and there are lots of examples of that. Talia Baroncelli Well, why were they underperforming? Is it because the technology still needs to be developed more? Or is it an issue of scale? Like, did they just need to be scaled up in order to be more effective? Bruce Robertson Well, no, unfortunately, the answer is no to both of those because the industry is old. It’s an over 50-year-old industry now. It’s not a new technology, and that’s at scale. It’s actually been done at scale since the 1970s. This is the key point. It’s not like we’ve just started doing carbon capture storage. It’s been going for half a century and at scale for half a century. If we look at some of the big projects, for example, the reasons are always different why these projects don’t succeed. That’s another complicating factor with this technology is that it’s not a technology that can be successful in one field, and you take it up and put it in another and expect it to be successful. It doesn’t work that way. Each time you build one of these plants, it’s a unique engineering feat. That’s one of the key reasons why it’s been unsuccessful is that it’s not something you can just replicate easily. The best example of this is the largest pure storage, carbon capture and storage project. In other words, they don’t use carbon dioxide to produce oil, and that’s actually at an LNG [Liquefied natural gas] plant in Northwest Western Australia called the Gorgon plant. Now, this plant is owned by Chevron, and the major partners in it are Exxon and Shell. So arguably, you’ve got access to some of the best petroleum engineers on the planet. There are three major oil companies, and it started about five or six years ago. Look, it’s just never been able to do what it said it could do. It’s still having problems today. The reason for that is where they’re putting it into is different from other places. They’ve had trouble with the sand clogging sensors, they’ve had trouble with corrosion pipes, and they’ve had all these different problems that are unique to that particular site. It means that it’s not been a successful project, despite over $3 billion USD being spent on it. We’re not talking about a cheap plant here. It’s a lot of money, a lot of engineering expertise, and it’s failed. This is not uncommon in carbon capture and storage. Talia Baroncelli Well, it sounds like it really is a deep carbonization pipe dream if it’s not as effective as a lot of industry actors and people investing in it would hope it to be. I think the International Energy Agency, a report that you mentioned in your report, stated that we would need something like 1.6 billion tons of carbon capture storage by 2030 in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050. I mean, what does that even mean? How big are those numbers, and how far away are we from reaching that? Bruce Robertson Well, we’re a very, very long way away from reaching it. Look, I don’t want to sit here and pretend to you that the decarbonization and the climate challenge are easy. It’s not an easy challenge. The IEA is looking at this and saying– and other governments, such as the U.S. government, in particular, with the Inflation Reduction Act, and the U.K. government and Europe– they’re all looking towards carbon capture and storage as the solution for a large part of the emissions reductions that they’re looking at. At the moment, that looks to be a very problematic solution, in our opinion. We entered this study with a reasonably open mind as to what was going to come out of the back end of it. All we were doing is we were actually looking at these projects, and we weren’t actually saying that they should capture so much carbon dioxide. We were looking at what the proponents, the actual proponents of the project, were saying that they were going to do at the beginning of the project. If they said, “we’re only going to capture 50% of the fluid gas coming up,” we used that. We didn’t say, “oh, we want them to capture 90%, 100%, or whatever.” We just used what the proponents said their plant was going to do at the beginning of the process and said, “alright, how did they perform against that, against their actual metrics?” I think that’s really a key point in the way we went about this study. It is actually using the proponent’s framework, and they fell very far short of what would be reasonable. I think that that’s the key point here is that we’re not putting our framework on it. It’s what these companies thought they could do. That is why we think it’s such a problematic technology. Talia Baroncelli You mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act. I think we all remember the crazy roller coaster ride Joe Manchin took us on leading up to the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, it was a mess, but it was passed. There are a lot of climate provisions in it. It puts a huge emphasis on carbon capture storage. Given the doubts that you’ve expressed with regards to this technology, why do you think the IRA, not the Irish IRA, Inflation Reduction Act places such a huge emphasis on this technology? Bruce Robertson It is the most curiously named act, isn’t it? The IRA Act. Talia Baroncelli I know. Bruce Robertson We have this terrorist organization [crosstalk 00:13:21]. Talia Baroncelli Is it possibly off carbon bonds? I don’t know. Bruce Robertson The whole inflation reduction thing, I don’t really understand why it’s even called that. We won’t go into the finer things of the naming of that act. If we look at why they turn to it, essentially, it’s the same reason that governments all around the world are looking at this. There are two things. One, they’re struggling to work out how to get to net zero without it. That’s the first point. The second point is we should never forget the lobbying power of the oil and gas industry globally and their power globally to try and entrench themselves in the energy system for longer. They used to eat carbon capture and storage as a method of doing this, of entrenching their products, which are oil and gas, in the energy system for longer. Because every time they build one of these, they say, this is the solution, and this is the way forward. But we’ve had that. We’ve gone through that phase. We’ve seen what’s happened with Gorgon’s plant in Western Australia. We’ve seen what’s happened with Shute Creek in the USA, in Wyoming since the 1980s, and its performance, or lack thereof, in terms of a climate solution. Now, Shute Creek has been a successful project from the point of view of the company because it’s made money and it has used carbon dioxide byproducts successfully to produce more oil and gas. But as a climate solution, it simply fails. I think that this is the key differential. What are you aiming to do with carbon capture and storage? Are you actually aiming to solve the climate problem, or are you aiming to keep oil and gas in the energy system for longer? Really, when you look at it, it’s pretty much the industry trying to keep oil and gas in the system for longer. There are some exceptions to this, and the exceptions to this are industries like cement, where so far, we haven’t really got a solution for dealing with the emissions from the cement industry. Cement is something that is very widely used, as everyone knows, all around the world in concrete, building, highways, and all sorts of other infrastructure. At the moment, decarbonizing cement is immensely difficult, and that’s why some people are turning to carbon capture and storage for these types of industrial emissions, hoping that they can get these projects to work. That’s a pretty big leap of faith at the moment, given the history and history of failure in the industry. Talia Baroncelli Do you think climate disclosure would be another way to tackle some of these issues? I don’t know if you’ve been following the U.S. SEC, the Security Exchange Commission’s proposal on climate disclosure. Basically, the proposal was to make companies disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. It was met with a lot of consternation from big companies such as BlackRock, one of the leading asset management firms in the world. They were obviously not very happy with this proposal because then they would have to disclose the financial risk and scope three emissions, which are basically downstream emissions. How important is this type of disclosure? Bruce Robertson It’s incredibly important, especially the scope three. Just to sort of go through a very quick basic explainer about what scope one, two, and three are. Look, if you look at oil and gas, for example, scope one and two emissions are when you produce the oil and gas, and scope three is when you burn the oil and gas. Now, the big problem we have at the moment is greenwashing of gas and LNG. There are terms used like carbon-neutral LNG, and it’s companies trying to basically take only the production emissions, the scope one and two emissions, and say, “well, we’re offsetting all those emissions either by buying carbon credits on the international carbon credit market or maybe electrifying part of their process instead of burning gas.” Now, the problem with that is approximately, and it depends on the product, approximately 85% of the emissions occur when you actually burn the product. So there are scope three emissions. So these guys are saying, “we’re producing carbon-neutral LNG,” but that’s only for the 15%. Even if that claim is correct, and there’s a lot of controversy over carbon credit units, as I’m sure you’re aware, but that’s a whole other podcast topic. It’s not really for today, but the efficacy of those units has been called into question. Even if they were good and were genuine offsets, and even if the companies did electrify processes and managed to produce in that production stage, LNG that wasn’t carbon neutral, the big problem is when you actually burn the product. That’s when most of the emissions occur. The burning of the product can’t occur without the production of the product. This is the whole disconnect in carbon accounting. Global warming is a global problem, and often people that don’t like the idea of reducing emissions use that phrase, but it’s very true. If you produce a product, you’ve got to know that at the end of the process, it’s going to get burnt and create emissions because, let’s face it, we’re never going to capture the carbon that comes off the back of your car for example, or your gas stove in your house. We have to take what’s called product stewardship, and that’s what the SEC was actually looking at. It was saying, “well, what are your scope, one, two, and three emissions? What are the emissions of when they burn your product?” Much like the tobacco industry, for example, could claim that no harm was made in the production of their cigarettes. Well, it’s quite frankly a bit irrelevant because the damage occurs when you smoke the cigarette. This really is the problem with carbon accounting at the moment, is it’s all done on national view and on national carbon accounts. For example, where I come from, which is probably one of the worst offenders of this, so I’m allowed to talk about it; we don’t take the scope three emissions of all the LNG that we produce into account. So we produce this and go, “well, we’ve got a net zero target for 2050, and we’re still opening up new oil and gas fields all over the shop and new coal mines and everything else and claiming that we’re going to meet net zero by 2050.” Well, it’s quite frankly dishonest because we know that if we open up the oil and gas fields, we can’t reach net zero by 2050. It’s a really basic thing. We just can’t reach net zero by 2050 if we open up new oil and gas fields. It’s all to do with this carbon accounting. Carbon accounting is, quite frankly, quite misleading. Talia Baroncelli Yeah, well, let’s pivot to where you’re from, to your corner of the world, Australia, and speak about some of the really exorbitant gas prices there, because Australia is one of the largest LNG exporters, and the industry is highly subsidized. Why are gas prices so damn high in Australia? Bruce Robertson Well, the funny thing is they are, and they aren’t, Talia. This is the amazing thing because the country is actually divided in two. We have a state-based system, much like the U.S. In Western Australia, prices are very cheap, and there’s no problem in the energy system at all in terms of electricity or gas prices. In Eastern Australia, it’s totally the reverse. We have very high gas prices. At times, since 2014, gas prices have been above international prices. This came about prior to 2014. The East Coast really didn’t produce that much gas; it only supplied the domestic market. Then, in 2014, we discovered large coal seam gas fields, which is getting gas out of coal seams using fracking. In Queensland– and they built three big export terminals. Now the East Coast market is over 70% exports, and only a small amount of gas is used domestically. What happened was that the three consortiums that built those plants took over a lot of smaller companies. They signed all these contracts with the smaller companies that had exclusivity provisions in them that they could only supply the export plants. Effectively, now these three consortiums control 90% of all the known reserves on the east coast of Australia. What they do is they manipulate the price. They formed a cartel, a gas cartel, and they manipulate the price and keep it extraordinarily high. There’s a lesson here, actually, in going so heavily into exports for the U.S., and this is what’s really interesting because the model to make gas prices high is Australia for the oil and gas industry, and the U.S. is actually following that model. Talia Baroncelli Is that because the U.S. presumably also has a very low tax burden on the industry, as well as a monopoly or oligopoly? Bruce Robertson No, in the U.S., it’s slightly different because you do actually have a market for gas. We don’t have a market for gas in Australia because you just got these three people controlling the price. In the U.S., you do have a market for gas, but how the U.S. is following what Australia did is it is overbuilding LNG plants and what that will cause. Look, if there was a small, medium-sized LNG industry in the U.S., it wouldn’t be a problem, but they are continuing to build a lot of plants. And what that’s going to do over time is force up gas prices in the U.S. more to international levels, more to the levels of gas prices you see in Europe and Asia, which are exorbitantly high. I think that that’s the key point. The key point is that you have this ability to reprice your domestic gas to the international market, and that’s the big prize for the U.S. oil and gas companies. It is not the expensive export market, but it’s making those expensive prices go into the domestic market. Talia Baroncelli One thing I’ve always wondered– why is gas labeled a transition form of energy? I mean, that word is somewhat confusing to me because it’s still emitting tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and yet it’s considered to be a kind of clean form of energy. Bruce Robertson Well, put simply, gas is just another fossil fuel. When we look at global emissions, 25% of all emissions are methane, which is natural gas. So 25% of all emissions are methane, greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions are growing so fast. In the COVID recession-affected year of 2020, they grew at the fastest rate in history. In 2021, after COVID ended, they grew faster. So in 2022, they grew faster again. So we’ve got this accelerating trend in methane emissions, and that’s because, basically, the expansion of the oil and gas industry, particularly the gas industry in the U.S., in Qatar, Australia, in all these nations, and we are still seeing very large expansion projects get put in. As I said before, we all know that if any new oil and gas fields open up, we can’t meet our net zero commitments. We all know that gas fields around the globe are being opened up at a very rapid rate. That’s why you’re seeing the continued rise in greenhouse gases. It’s driven by the gas industry. It’s driven by the gas industry. There’s been this pivot from the oil and gas industry and the fossil fuel industry, basically from oil and coal into gas, and that’s driving climate change at the moment. Talia Baroncelli Well, I wanted to speak about Europe very briefly. I mean, even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there were really high energy prices in Europe. Recently, a lot of European politicians have been saying that they’ve managed to avert an energy crisis and that, I guess, they were expecting prices to be even higher this winter, but because temperatures haven’t been all that cold, they maybe were able to avert this crisis. So what does that mean? Have they been able to diversify or just find other countries to give them more gas, or what’s going on? Bruce Robertson Look, Europe’s essentially, well, Russia has essentially precipitated a global gas crisis. What happened was that Putin turned off the taps, literally. Big pipelines that went to Europe and supplied them with their winter fuel were basically turned off. Obviously, this was a disaster for Europe because they relied on Russian gas for a large part of their energy system. The crisis has been averted for now in Europe, principally because of the weather. Very warm winter for no other reason. If you had a very cold winter, we wouldn’t be saying this. I’m sure it would be a lot more marginal. Europe did build a lot of gas storages. It imported as much LNG as it could get its hands on. But most LNG is sold on long-term contracts. So there isn’t a lot of spare LNG out there in the globe. So when this happened in Europe, they soaked up all the spare, the short-term cargoes of LNG they possibly could, and all the LNG plants all around the globe ran as fast as they possibly could because there was this massive profit-making opportunity for them. You saw the combination of those two things occur. What did that actually do to gas? It made it prohibitively expensive in other countries. Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, they simply couldn’t afford the fuel. They had relied on the short-term market because, historically, the short-term market was cheaper than long-term contracts. They had relied on that for their power systems. What it meant was that it became so expensive they couldn’t afford to buy it because they knew if they sent out the electricity bills that would run off that high-cost gas and high-cost LNG, people wouldn’t pay them. So literally, you had rolling blackouts in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh caused by the LNG crisis that was precipitated by Russia turning off the taps to gas to Europe. So that had this amazing effect on these countries. So what higher LNG prices have done is they’ve actually lowered demand in what were expected to be growing markets for the LNG industry. In the medium to longer term, they’ve killed those markets with high prices. Talia Baroncelli But has that affected their margins and their profits because if they’ve essentially lowered demand, people aren’t consuming as much of that gas? Will that inevitably mean that these companies will then lower their prices over the long term, or you don’t see it working out that way? Bruce Robertson In the short term, Europe is soaking up all the gas it possibly can because the amount of gas it was buying out of Russia was very large. So in the short term, LNG prices are still strong. They’re coming off a bit now because the gas storages in Europe are still quite full and because it’s a warm winter. But it’s only a seasonal thing. It’s only a short-term seasonal thing. In the medium term, what you’re seeing in Europe is the rapid electrification of a lot of houses that previously relied on gas. They’re turning to heat pumps, and they’re manufacturing a lot of heat pumps right now and installing an awful lot of heat pumps. So they’re electrifying their systems, which means long-term demand destruction for gas. Once you put an electric boiler in your house to heat your home, you don’t buy gas again. It’s a long-term demand destruction. The high gas prices are causing demand destruction globally. In Europe, high gas prices and mainly the fear of lack of availability rather than the actual lack of availability have meant that there’s been long-term demand destruction by people turning to electrify their homes. In Asia, in developing Asia, it’s just too expensive, so they’re turning to alternative forms of fuel, whatever they can, just not gas. Coal is very expensive as well on the globally traded market. So that’s also facing similar issues to gas long term. You are seeing a burn in renewables globally on the back of this. So it’s kind of perverse how such a great event for the LNG industry is turning into one that, long term, will lower their demand. Talia Baroncelli So how important is it that big industrial powers like the U.S. or supernational entities like the E.U. work with China to meet these climate goals, despite some of the differences that they have geopolitically? Bruce Robertson Global warming is a global problem, as I always say, and we have to work together. Now, the classic example is the treatment of China. A lot of people see China as a global pariah in the climate thing for whatever reason. But we have to look at why emissions in China have risen. They’ve risen because the Western world, Europe, the U.S., Australia, we’ve all basically deindustrialized a lot of our economies and sent that manufacturing to China. We’ve exported our emissions essentially to China. So we can’t complain about Chinese emissions rising when phones, computers, and many products are now made in China that weren’t before. So we have to work together to solve this emissions problem. We did it before with CFCs. We worked globally, and there were big issues between Russia and the U.S. at the time, but we managed to do that and solve that problem. Working globally has been done before to solve global environmental issues that are threatening us. We can do it again. We must do it again. We must realize, as a starting point, that the Western world has exported a lot of its emissions to China and to developing Asia. Talia Baroncelli Well, thank you, Bruce, for joining us for this really enlightening discussion on decarbonization. Bruce Robertson Thank you very much, Talia. Talia Baroncelli Thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’re in a position to donate, please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen and subscribe to our newsletter. Thank you. Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",o):document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("action",o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook("action",o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook("filter",o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+"_"+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),"filter"==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}}); Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); “Bruce Robertson has been an investment analyst, fund manager, and professional investor for over 36 years. He has worked with Perpetual Trustees, UBS, Nippon Life Insurance, and BT. He has appeared as an expert witness before a number of government inquiries into energy issues.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/exposing-apocalyptic-economics-with-steve-keen\/#arve-youtube-bshq_o-op8s63d8086d6cee2345611320","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/bsHQ_O-op8s?feature=oembed&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"COLIN BRUCE INVUS STEVE KEEN","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Colin-Bruce-jpeg.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-01-30T13:09:33+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Steve Keen has been exposing the ways mainstream neoclassical economists\u2014including winners of the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics\u2014 have been arriving at their absurdly optimistic numbers regarding climate change, and they\u2019re terrifying. In this interview with Colin Bruce Anthes, Keen goes through"} Steve Keen has been exposing the ways mainstream neoclassical economists—including winners of the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics— have been arriving at their absurdly optimistic numbers regarding climate change, and they’re terrifying. In this interview with Colin Bruce Anthes, Keen goes through prevalent examples in detail and argues that these numbers and the methods behind them must simply be thrown in the garbage. .kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_c7a720-9a .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Exposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve Keen Navy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry Wilkerson State of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital Enclosures Real Climate Solutions are No Mystery – Pollin How to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – Pollin Debunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy… A Warning From Chomsky and Ellsberg Biden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob Pollin Progressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing Country The Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell it Daniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and Ukraine A Dire Warning About the End of Human Civilization Nationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob Pollin Fossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4 Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change Humanity will not be saved by promises COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2 COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2 House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil Executives Stop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob Pollin Biden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob Pollin A Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4 Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC Author A Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is Inevitable Not Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music Colin Bruce Anthes Welcome to theAnalysis.news. I’m Colin Bruce Anthes.   You may have noticed that while natural scientists are focused on the ecological costs of climate change, social scientists and politicians seem much less concerned with the economic costs. According to renowned Australian economist Steve Keen, the reason is terrifying.   Dr. Keen has been going through the works of the most mainstream neoclassical economists on whom our politicians base their projections and looking at how they’re arriving at their numbers regarding climate change. He has found that they repeatedly confuse climate, the foundation of our energy and food, with the weather, with some of the biggest names even stating that 87% of the economy won’t really be affected by climate change because the jobs are primarily indoors. This is such a fundamental and apocalyptic mistake that it leaves little room for reform. Dr. Keen argues that we must simply abandon these economists and their framework, saying it’s us or them.   Steve Keen has a history of calling out junk economics. He correctly and famously predicted the 2008 recession and spent the years leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis berating mainstream economists for failing to account for the role of private debt and credit. If he says we need to sound the alarm, we should probably pay attention. Steve Keen, welcome to theAnalysis. Steve Keen Thank you. That was a very good introduction, very thorough. Colin Bruce Anthes I want to make sure that I’m framing your position correctly because I’m familiar with the pernicious influence of big money on politics and economics. But you’re saying the problem runs much deeper than just corruption, and that’s why we can’t swap out the good neoclassical economists for the bad ones. Steve Keen It is simply what they believe. People who are critical of economics from outside of the profession often think that economists are shrills for the capitalist, that sort of thing. I’ve seen that quite regularly on Twitter, of course, and that’s getting the horse before the cart. Because, in fact, training in neoclassical economics, if you accept it, if you believe it, ends up making you effectively a zealot for your vision of what capitalism is. You really have a belief in capitalism as the ideal social system. Therefore, if you see anything which challenges the sustainability of capitalism, it’s an automatic tendency to reject it. Of course, that can benefit the capitalist class, but it’s not why they do it.   This is what happened in this particular case. No one paid William Nordhaus to assume that 87% of the economy would be unaffected by climate change because it happens in carefully controlled environments. That’s his own attitude to capitalism. Given their model of how capitalism functions, it’s an infinitely flexible system, therefore, it can cope with anything, therefore, climate change can’t be a problem. And that mindset is what has determined the predictions they have made, which are so badly based that they should simply be thrown in the garbage bin. That’s, of course, what I’m trying to explain to policymakers, media, and so on. Colin Bruce Anthes Let’s take a look at what they mean by climate within these models and what, say, a natural scientist would call climate. Let’s make sure we’re not making the same mistake that they’re making. Steve Keen To some extent, I think we can blame how climate is defined in conventional organizations, like, for example, NOAA, the National Office of Oceanic [Atmospheric] Administration– I think it stands for. A wonderful acronym. I may have got the actual title there wrong. They say that weather is what you experience on a day-by-day basis. Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time. And that really makes it seem that climate and weather are statistically different distributions but the same basic data sets. Weather is particularly the day, and climate is over a range of days. That’s fundamentally misleading when it comes down to what climate change actually means.   To me, I think about climate as the actual structure of the fluid flows in the oceans and the atmosphere of planet Earth. And to me, climate change, for example, would mean going from the three circulation cells that currently set the weather patterns in each of the two hemispheres of the planet, the North and South Hemispheres. So you have a cell where there’s rising air at zero degrees and falling at 30; that’s the Hadley cell. Then you have what’s called the Ferrel cell, which has falling and rising at 30 and 60, and then the polar is 60 to 90. That’s why you have such substantial temperature differences between the tropics, the temperate zone, and the polar zone. It’s relatively consistent temperatures inside each of those zones.   Now, if that flips over, and it has flipped over frequently in the Earth’s past due to natural factors, of course, if that flips over to a single cell, then what you’ll have is rising air at the poles, at the equator, and falling air at the poles. In the middle, effectively, generally speaking, a drought, a desert. Now, that’s climate change. So that is a structural change to the patterns of fluid flows in both the oceans and the air that generate the weather we feel on a daily basis. There’s no way that there is– it is not average anymore. It’s a complete change of the system that generates the weather. That’s what climate change is. Colin Bruce Anthes Can you go through the disparity between the kind of description you’ve just given, the kind of description we might expect from a natural scientist, and the projections that these neoclassical economists are making? Steve Keen Well, the description that science is giving is existential. If we exceed, and they’re giving vague numbers because, of course, this has never been done before, not only in the history of humanity but also in the history of the planet, we’ve never had as rapid a change in the carbon dioxide levels as we’re forcing on the planet right now. Of course, there are various structures that have evolved over time in our current climate, the Holocene climate, such as the Arctic having summer sea ice. So the Arctic reflects 90% of the energy that falls on it during summer. Greenland, a similar reflector of energy, and the Antarctic are the same in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation patterns of the integrated ocean thermohaline circulation, which is an oceanic river, hundreds of times the volume of all the rivers, the continental rivers on the planet. So all those huge structural elements, that’s the defining nature of the climate.   What they’re saying, what scientists are saying, is that if we increase the temperature by as little as one degree, we could trigger a breakdown in many of those characteristics of the current climate, and that would then cause a cascade. Scientists have been saying numbers like don’t let it increase more than two or three degrees.   The most recent paper by Kemp and Co, I think in 2021 or 2022, came out saying three degrees is their limit for an absolutely unsustainable temperature increase. You’ll see figures as low as 1%; we’ve already exceeded 1%. So the scientists are speculating, but all of the speculations say anything above that level you’re talking about, such a change in the climate that we could no longer sustain the sedentary human civilization we’ve had for the last 12,000 years. Our agricultural system could be destroyed, and therefore the carrying populist, the carrying capacity of the planet could fall from the area of 8 billion, as we currently have, down to 1 billion if we’re lucky. You know, that means 7 billion people die. Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Steve Keen So that’s the scale the scientists are talking about. Economists, on the other hand, are saying, and this is quoting Nordhaus, “a six-degree increase in temperature will cause an 8.9% fall in GDP compared to what it would be in the complete absence of climate change.” If you look at the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report, Working Group Two, Chapter 16, as the economics chapter inside there, that chapter said that “a four-degree increase in temperature by 2100 four degrees Celsius could cause between a 10-23% fall in GDP compared to what it would be in the absence of climate change.” Therefore, they’re assuming growth for the next 80 years, which would increase per capita incomes by a factor of five. They’re saying rather than being five times as large, they’ll be four times as large, which is trivial. Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Steve Keen So that’s the difference. One is that they’re saying a minor decline in overall productive capacity while it still grows over time, whereas the other side is saying we won’t have a civilization past, certainly past four degrees; most of us don’t even suggest four degrees level of warming. They’re saying forget it. Human civilization is over at that level. Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Yeah, that’s a disparity, alright. Steve Keen Huge. Colin Bruce Anthes It’s enormous. I think for those who do not know who Nordhaus is and who some of these figures are, this is not a case of, say, big tobacco finding some fringe person somewhere who will accept a bribe to say something crazy. These are the most mainstream figures. Steve Keen Nordhaus, first of all, has taken over the mantle of publishing one of the dominant textbooks, the Paul Samuelson textbook. He is now the continuing editor of the Samuelson textbook on economics. He was elected president of the Economic Association sometime in the last few years– I forgot when he actually was– and he got the Nobel Prize, the so-called Nobel Prize for Economics, in 2018. So he’s high status in the profession. He and a group of economists– it’s only a very small band of economists, by the way. This is one thing I try to emphasize to the profession. I say, for God’s sake, ditch Nordhaus because if you don’t ditch Nordhaus, you will be responsible for– when the shit hits the fan and the shit is coming, you will be, economics, in general, will be responsible for letting this garbage and, frankly, that’s the only way I can describe it, this garbage get published. If you had decent refereeing of papers on the basis of the science of climate change being applied to these economic papers, none of them would have been published. Colin Bruce Anthes I want to delve a little further into some of the examples that you talk about as you go through the papers that these people have published and the statements that they made. The 87% number that’s given, one of them is about the Gulf Stream, which is absolutely terrifying. Can you go through some of the extreme falsities that are being published on a very wide scale right now? Steve Keen They have about four methods they’ve used to make up, and I emphasize make-up numbers, not generate data, but make-up numbers that then they say are related to climate change. So the very first is what they call the enumerative method. The enumerative method, the way they describe it, is that they take data from science papers and add up the damages that science papers say, and then you are adding up from the bottom up. So that’s what they call the enumerative method.   Now, when you take a look at Nordhaus, 1991, To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of Climate Change, published in the Economic Journal, which is published by Oxford University, and certainly one of the top three or top five journals in economics in 1991. Here he said that “there are some activities, such as microprocessor fabrication or open heart surgery, which occur in carefully controlled environments,” that’s literally a quote, “which will not be particularly subject to climate change. On the other hand, there are other activities which are exposed to the weather and therefore exposed to climate change.” He said, “our estimate,” meaning his estimate, “our estimate is that 87% of the American economy will be negligibly affected by climate change because it takes place in carefully controlled environments.”   Now, when you look at the table here, which is table 15 in that particular paper, I think it was all of manufacturing, all of wholesale and retail services, all of the finance sector, most of real estate, except for a small amount of coastal real estate, and he even included mining, apparently not being aware that a lot of mining is open cut and therefore exposed to the weather. So that is the scale of it. You would hope that it would just be an aberration that got through, but later papers fixed it up. Instead, that was being maintained all the way through. They don’t use that method anymore, but they haven’t rejected the numbers they got out of that.   Now, when Nordhaus did his calculations, he had 3% of the economy being seriously exposed, which was largely agriculture and forestry, and 10% marginally exposed. When he added up his numbers, he got a total of 0.26% change in the reduction in GDP for a three-degree increase in temperature. Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Steve Keen Now, the reason he got that [inaudible 00:13:06] when it came to the section he said would be exposed, which is agriculture and forestry, he said he had taken into account the fertilizer effect of carbon dioxide. He had somewhere between a plus 9.7 and -10.5 and, therefore, the average of the two was what he put in as the major source of damages; that’s where the 0.26% of GDP fall came from. Then he said, “there may be other factors that aren’t included here. I might bump it up to 1%. But my hunch,” and literally the word hunch in a so-called scientific paper, “my hunch is that the damages will be and no more than 2% of GDP from three degrees of warming.” Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Steve Keen A lot of those enumerative method ones come out with damages between, positive, actually, some of them think fertilizer effects are really good, with positive effects of up to 1% — Richard Toll published one of those papers– down to about 2 or 3% fall in GDP; that’s the range that they get. Colin Bruce Anthes Wow. Steve Keen The second method they call the statistical method. This is the very first paper that I actually saw, and I realized just how diluted they were on climate change. This is by Richard Toll in 2009 called The Economics of Climate Change. In that paper, he described what he called the statistical approach, which is used by [Robert O.] Mendelsohn, who’s one of the research colleagues of Nordhaus, who said, “Mendelsohn assumes that the variation of GDP with climate over space will hold over time.”   Now, what that means is Nordhaus– Mendelsohn, in this particular case, said it first and initially just with America; they then generalized a global distribution of income. But looking at, say, gross state products and average state temperature, you can then get this, and I’ve done this myself; it’s just a simple exercise to show how stupid this is. If you take a look at the average temperature for every state in mainland America, continental America, and the gross state product per capita, which is the state version of GDP, then you get a scatter plot. If you then graph the temperature on the horizontal and the income on the vertical, you get a scatter plot, which is a huge, wide scatter plot. But if you do a quadratic regression on that, and they almost always use quadratics, what they call their damage functions, that quadratic will tell you that each degree increase in temperature reduces your GDP by about 0.3% times the temperature change squared. Now, that therefore means that a ten-degree increase in temperature will cause about a 15% fall in GDP. Ironically, that’s a bigger number than Nordhaus himself uses.   So his damage function is that the damage to GDP from temperature increase will be zero 0.227% X the temperature change. And that’s where you get this six-degree increase in temperature, about an 8% fall in GDP. But it’s literally using the geographic nature of climate. So obviously, the climate of Florida is different to the climate of North Dakota, but that’s sitting inside exactly the same temperature distribution of global temperature. There’s no change in global temperature between Dakota and Florida because they’re on the same globe. They simply assume that very light variation, relatively trivial role of temperature in determining GDP will be what climate change does over time.   The craziness of this is that if you– and I’ve made this case for a research project I’m working on right now– the reason that you can have a successful economy in Florida and have a successful one in Dakota is they trade with each other. There is stuff that North Dakota can’t produce that Florida can, and there is stuff that Florida can’t produce that North Dakota can. Part of the income is because North Dakota is selling products to Florida. Now, you can’t sell through time, okay. You can’t sell wheat produced in 2020 to people in 2100. So the whole idea that you can use what happens over space as an anagram of what happens over time is just nonsense. Again, it’s showing they simply don’t understand what climate change actually means.   The third method that has come along after that, and that is that acknowledging that mistake, some economists have said, “well, we need to have data where there’s a change in temperature, change in global average temperature, and we then compare that to the GDP or change in GDP. That’s been done by a number of people.   There’s a paper by [Matthew E.] Kahn, [Kamiar] Mohaddes, and a few others coming out of the International Monetary Fund, and they have said, “well, there’s a nonlinear relationship at the geographic level between temperature and GDP.” So they’ve worked out what that nonlinear relationship is for change in temperature over the period 1960 to 2014. I think that’s the dataset they used. They then extrapolated that forward 80 years. Now that only works if there’s no structural change to the climate over the next 80 years, which is nonsense because they’re talking about– they said that there is a 0.125 degrees Celsius change in temperature per year, which mounts up to 3.2 degrees over the next 80 years, will cause about, as I think, a 0.05 decline in GDP for each year. Therefore they’re saying that there will be a seven– and I love the false precision they give. This is supposed to be statisticians. This sort of false precision says you’re a child. You don’t know really what you’re doing. They’ve said that there will be a 7.22% fall in GDP by 2100 from a 3.2-degree increase in Celsius and temperature. Now they can’t even get today’s GDP accurate to one-tenth of 1%. Here they’re trying to predict GDP in 8 years’ time to two decimal places of accuracy. It’s just nonsense. So that’s the sort of thing there.   There are basically three methods. What they’re doing is really saying you can find the footprint for global warming in current data, and that’s just nonsense because it’s a cascading effect, and it’s the runaway process that we are now very, very close to triggering. That is the really scary thing. The complete structural breakdown of our climate will occur over the next 80 years, and all these predictions are just nonsense. Colin Bruce Anthes I’m not a particularly religious person myself, but there’s a church in my community, and it’s a good actor. For several years I volunteered on its committee as a community partner, and they were getting hit with thousands of dollars of new insurance costs because of the increased risk of the world. Steve Keen Absolutely. The climate instability we’re seeing right now, the crazy cold temperatures in America, crazy hot temperatures in Europe, drought in California, now it’s flooding in California; that volatility is being generated by the extra energy that we’ve trapped in the atmosphere courtesy of carbon dioxide. So we’re already seeing that real-world couldn’t give a damn about what economists think. The real world will do what the real world climate does under the energy pressure that we’re putting on the biosphere, and that is going to make a laughing stock of the predictions of the economists probably in this decade. At some point, it’ll be bleedingly obvious that their damage estimates have got absolutely nothing to do with what’s actually going on, and the damages are far, far higher. In that situation, anybody who’s trusted economists either directly or indirectly by accepting their damage assessments and then putting that through insurance contracts and so on, they’re going to be forced to pay out an absolute fortune, and they’ll be bankrupted by the cost of climate change damages. Colin Bruce Anthes If we want to be able to think about this critically and productively and not make the same mistake as them, what is a good starting point for us to think about? What is the role of climate in the economy? Steve Keen First of all, just get a handle on what sort of changes are being spoken about. What is feasible to happen if the temperature rises any further? I’ll give one of my favorite examples because it’s terrifying, and the person who’s making it has impeccable credentials. The professor of Chemistry at Harvard University, James G. Anderson, was the person who discovered the hole in the ozone layer in the last century and led the campaign to close the hole. So his argument in a paper published in 2017 is that with the decline in the Arctic summer sea ice, that will trigger a breakdown of those three circulation cells. That means that storms that currently develop over the plains of America, central plains of America, which are enormous storms, will penetrate the stratosphere. So at the moment, those storms are restricted to the troposphere, which is below 20 km where we live and work. If it gets into the stratosphere, it will take moisture into the stratosphere. The current of the stratosphere has very, very low levels of H2O, so it’s a very dry stratosphere. When that water passes in, it will also carry in chlorine and bromide, partially from our own industrial processes but also even from volcanoes. That chlorine and bromide will increase, according to Anderson’s paper, increase the rate of destruction of ozone by a factor of 100. What that would mean is it’s no longer safe to go outdoors for humans, in particular. Other animals with fur have slightly better chances than us. Plants apparently have got a fair bit of protection against high levels of UV. But we won’t be able to go outdoors. I’m sorry, that’s the end of human civilization. If we can’t go outdoors during daylight hours, then what happens to our civilization? It breaks down. Of course, people will die of skin cancer. So it’s an appalling potential.   Now, in that situation, if that’s happening, you haven’t got an economy. And so that the existential stuff that I want people to realize is what we’re playing with here. So that’s the real danger. It’s not a case of a bit of damage here, a few more percent insurance claims, and stuff like that. It’s you can no longer manage a human civilization, and you couldn’t even manage hunting and gathering in that situation because you couldn’t afford to hunt during the day. It’s existential. That’s what I prefer people to look at rather than we’re working in terms of percentages of GDP and damages and so on. That’s the game the economists have played, and also, it’s a game of correlation, not causation. They have no theory as to how temperature causes GDP. They simply say, here’s this correlation we’re found in current data, and that’s what we’re going to use to predict the damages of climate change. It’s completely irrelevant to what climate change will actually do to human civilization. Colin Bruce Anthes I’m going to ask you a tough question. Maybe it’s too much for this interview, but my generation has never experienced a real recovery from 2008. COVID has caused more economic distress. Major companies like Goldman Sachs are already laying people off in anticipation of another downturn. We’re having a conversation about how economists have wildly overestimated how good things are going to be. So do we throw out these neoclassical economists who are making these terrible projections? If we put them aside and start to put a different theory in place, is there some feasible glimmer of sunlight that we can put in front of people to rally behind? Steve Keen Well, the main thing is we have to drastically reduce the load we put on the planet in terms of the biosphere. So carbon dioxide is the most obvious damage we’re doing, but everything else we do as well. We’re dumping plastics which are damaging food chains throughout the world. We’re intruding on what used to be virgin territory. We’re hitting up against– that’s where the pandemic came from. The fact that we’re intruding into areas which used to be off-limits for humans. Now we’re the best possible host for any pandemic. Why attack any other animal when humans are so prolific and distribute the diseases so well? So we’re making ourselves a target for all these hostile elements of the environment in which we live.   So the only glimmer would be to say, and I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think we’re going to have to go into a catastrophe before we reverse direction. But what we have to say is we have to drastically reduce our load on the planet now, and that means a drastic fall in the consumption levels of the rich that can be both global rich but also rich within each nation-state. So it’s not the poor who have to consume less because even in the case of America, something like about 30% of people are living on the breadline. So you can’t force them to consume less, but you have to make the rich consume less, and you have to radically and rapidly decarbonize the economy. Then you’ve also got to reduce our load on the planet so that we reserve at least half the planet for nonhuman life. At the moment, we’re using 97% of the planet. The only parts we’re not using are the ones that are simply impossible to use, such as Greenland, Antarctica, and the Tundra regions. Everything else we’re exploiting to the hills, and we have to say that no longer can be allowed.   Now I simply don’t believe we’re going to do it in time. Even if people in policy listen to me, which they won’t do, they know how hard it would be to sell the sort of message I’ve got to the public. If they try to sell that message before it becomes obvious and necessary, they’ll lose their positions. So we won’t do anything until we get absolutely obvious catastrophes that have to be blamed on climate change, and nothing else can be considered.   For example, something like the breakdown of the ozone layer of the Northern Hemisphere, that could be a wake-up call. Now, in that situation, if you don’t have any chance of maintaining human civilization through this process, you have to have measures in place that give you a chance to react to whatever catastrophe will come along. So if the catastrophe happens to be a collapse in wheat production, and that’s quite a feasible one from climate change, then you have to have reserves of grain already stored in case there’s a collapse in the crops, and you have to have a rationing system. So if everybody gets the same ration, you don’t have people starving to death because they can’t afford to buy the grain. You’ve got to go from a monetary capitalist economy to a ration-based, war-based economy effectively. But all these things are so gigantic that you have to be prepared to throw a level of our energy, our activity at the planet that will draw from what we did during World War II. These are going to happen. The question is, are they going to be enforced upon us, or are we going to try to manage it? Colin Bruce Anthes That’s not an optimistic note to end on, but perhaps it’s the kind of bluntness that we need to deal with a real world with a real climate and not the imagined world of these neoclassical economists. Steve Keen, this has been a very insightful interview. Thank you so much for being here. Steve Keen Thank you, Colin. Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?o():!gform.domLoaded&&gform.scriptsLoaded?window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",o):document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",o)},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("action",o,n,r,t)},addFilter:function(o,n,r,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,n,r,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,n){gform.removeHook("action",o,n)},removeFilter:function(o,n,r){gform.removeHook("filter",o,n,r)},addHook:function(o,n,r,t,i){null==gform.hooks[o][n]&&(gform.hooks[o][n]=[]);var e=gform.hooks[o][n];null==i&&(i=n+"_"+e.length),gform.hooks[o][n].push({tag:i,callable:r,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(n,o,r){var t;if(r=Array.prototype.slice.call(r,1),null!=gform.hooks[n][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[n][o]).sort(function(o,n){return o.priority-n.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==n?t.apply(null,r):r[0]=t.apply(null,r)})),"filter"==n)return r[0]},removeHook:function(o,n,t,i){var r;null!=gform.hooks[o][n]&&(r=(r=gform.hooks[o][n]).filter(function(o,n,r){return!!(null!=i&&i!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][n]=r)}}); Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); “Steve Keen is an Australian economist and author. He considers himself a post-Keynesian, criticizing neoclassical economics as inconsistent, unscientific, and empirically unsupported.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

Why the United States should reduce its unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and the bleak outlook for Iran Nuclear Deal talks. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a transpartisan think tank.

Larry Wilkerson reports on a webinar where the U.S. Navy described climate change as an existential risk. Will the civilian leadership finally take urgent action?

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/honest-government-ad-julian-assange\/#arve-youtube-4vosusjwwtq63d049c5494e2116050844","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/4VosUSJwWTQ?feature=oembed&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange - @thejuicemedia","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/4VosUSJwWTQ\/hqdefault.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-01-20T12:58:58+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"The British, Australian, Ecuadorian, and US Governments have made an ad about Julian Assange\u2019s arrest, and it\u2019s surprisingly honest and informative! This video was originally published by The Juice Media in 2019. This video was made by The Juice Media and is republished with permission. You can find"} The British, Australian, Ecuadorian, and US Governments have made an ad about Julian Assange’s arrest, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative! This video was originally published by The Juice Media in 2019. This video was made by The Juice Media and is republished with permission. You can find their work here: https://www.youtube.com/thejuicemedia, and you can support them on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/TheJuiceMedia .kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_363ce0-d3 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange Honest Government Ad | Visit Western Australia Juice Media Satire: Australian “Values” News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice Media Juice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy” Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen Donate Subscribe Music Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_3" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

The inflation conference at Political Economy Research Institute at UMass Amherst (PERI) presented mounting evidence that raising the rate of interest will only raise unemployment and weaken the bargaining power of low-wage workers and the poor that are already hit hard by the pandemic across the world. Robert Pollin joins Sharmini Peries on theAnalysis.news.

{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@id":"https:\/\/theanalysis.news\/apartheid-drives-the-conflict-in-peru\/#arve-youtube-rkhdkg70xfk63c571f0b6ece292101169","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/RKHdKg70xFk?feature=oembed&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=1&enablejsapi=1","name":"Apartheid Drives the Conflict in Peru","thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/RKHdKg70xFk\/hqdefault.jpg","uploadDate":"2023-01-16T10:45:33+00:00","author":"theAnalysis-news","description":"Nearly 50 protesters have been killed by police in Peru following the removal from office of President Pedro Castillo six weeks ago. Peru analyst Francesca Emanuele says that the conflict is symptomatic of Peru's systematic exclusion of the poor and indigenous population from its political system. T"} Nearly 50 protesters have been killed by police in Peru following the removal from office of President Pedro Castillo six weeks ago. Peru analyst Francesca Emanuele says that the conflict is symptomatic of Peru’s systematic exclusion of the poor and indigenous population from its political system. .kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kadence-post-image{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-post-grid-wrap{gap:30px 6px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;border-top-left-radius:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .kt-blocks-post-grid-item-inner{padding-top:10px;padding-right:25px;padding-bottom:25px;padding-left:9px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item header{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-blocks-post-grid-item .entry-title{padding-top:5px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:10px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;font-size:16px;line-height:17px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .entry-content{padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kt-blocks-post-footer{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .entry-content:after{height:0px;}.kt-post-loop_2e2872-69 .kb-filter-item{border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:2px;border-left-width:0px;padding-top:5px;padding-right:8px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-left:8px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:10px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;} Apartheid Drives the Conflict in Peru Pro-Bolsonaro Attacks Following Bannon’s Playbook? Brazil: Hope for the First Time in a Very Long Time Peru’s Systemic Political Crisis Deepens as President is Arrested Lula Wins in Brazil but “Will Have to Tread Very Carefully” After Bolsonaro’s Failures, Why was Brazil’s Election so Close? Chile’s Devastating Vote A Paradigm Shift for Colombia Reversal of Fortune for Colombia’s Left? Does Nicaragua Under President Ortega Deserve Progressives’ Support? Burying Neoliberalism in Chile Honduras: The End of the Nightmare? A Second Pink Tide in Latin America? – Pt 2/2 Haiti, Aristide, and U.S.-Backed Coups Biden Reneged on Cuban Campaign Promise – James Early Haitian Ruling Families Create and Kill Monsters US Institutions Encourage Coup Impunity in Bolivia The Left Wins Peru’s Presidential Election Colombia Enters a New Phase of Popular Mobilization Biden Continues the US War on Cuba Peru: Left vs. Far-Right – Dramatic Choice in Presidential Election Ecuador’s Socialist Loses as Left Splits Lula Returns as Covid Runs Wild in Brazil Biden’s Venezuela Policy: Continuity with Trump Haiti: Canada & U.S. Support Coups and Dictators A New Beginning for Bolivia Haiti’s Century of US Coups, Invasions & Puppets – Abby Martin US Media’s Sins of Omission in Ecuadorian Election Coverage The Mixed Record of Mexico’s AMLO, Two Years In Venezuela’s Socialists Win Election Despite Declining Support Peru: Mass Protests Against Hypercapitalist Narco-State Force Presidents’ Resignations Venezuela’s Opposition Split Over Election Boycott Bolivia: Barricades and Crisis in a Crisis Transcript Listen Donate Subscribe Guest Music The transcript will be arriving shortly. Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like any amount $5 $15 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000 Custom Amount $ Make this donation each month (optional) Donate with Credit Card Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required) Name(Required) First Last Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_3" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); “Francesca Emanuele is a Peruvian sociologist and a research assistant at American University in Washington, D.C., where she is pursuing doctoral studies in Anthropology.” theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“.   Never-Endum-Referendum Artist Website Paul Jay’s Documentaries

Was Lula’s response proportional to the attacks on the presidential palace, Congress, and the Supreme Court?