Global warming is no longer a future problem. Rather, it is a reality and its consequences are getting worse. In response, countries have promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, especially carbon dioxide.
And writer Mark Buchanan says - in his article published by the American "Bloomberg" website - that temperatures in France this week reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit (42.2 degrees Celsius), which is about 36 degrees Fahrenheit above the seasonal average, and in London it reached 104 degrees. (40 degrees Celsius), breaking the record set in 2019, and at the same time, severe forest fires erupted across France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and dozens of US states.
After the 2015 Paris Agreement, the United States promised to cut emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and many other countries made similar or more ambitious promises.
As a result, he explained, financial markets should have started devaluing "stranded" fossil fuel assets - which are oil and coal reserves that simply cannot be burned - if we wanted to have a livable future, adding that a recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Cheng" (Nature Climate Change), a monthly scientific journal, found that the current value of outstanding oil and gas assets still exceeds $1 trillion, and are mainly owned by private investors in OECD countries, and the value of the assets they hold Notable Financial Institutions Weak exposure to risk that led to the banking crash and financial crisis of 2007-2008.
The writer wondered about the reality of what is happening, noting that it appears as if the markets are not very efficient, and that investors are so far ignoring the horrific shock that they will witness at some time in the future, adding that investors may not believe that governments will act according to their climate pledges, and who can Really blame them?
Despite countless wonderful words, the world's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise relentlessly.
There is also a third possibility, evidenced by the recent dramatic collapse of climate legislation in the US Senate;
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who has invested heavily in coal operations, has tipped the balance against stronger climate policy, and of course the 50 Republican senators joined him, noting that it may be fossil fuel companies and their investors - especially some powerful groups with broad influence - They hope to influence the future by keeping fossil fuel valuations inflated, adding that they may believe that continued confidence in fossil fuel assets may be enough to influence markets, encourage more investment, and ultimately convince the public to expect continued use of fossil fuels.
Indeed, the writer says, it is annoying;
But this idea makes more sense than one might initially think, as high ratings create expectations that can easily be achieved, allowing governments to get away from doing anything or generally follow the path of action that is least painful for political leaders, as politicians can be persuaded that lower demand for fuel Fossil will lead to election loss or social unrest.
The writer pointed out that the more people who see fossil fuels as a major investment, the more fossil fuel stocks will be subsidized, and the more fossil fuel companies will invest in real assets, and then it will be difficult for governments to back down, because more money and capital will be at stake. .
What is worse is that fewer people have invested in energy alternatives, such as renewables, which will then attract support from a weaker lobby, and the end result is that we all continue to use fossil fuels at rates incompatible with mitigating the effects of climate change. Regardless of the growing dire consequences.
The writer concluded by saying that showing confidence in fossil fuels now can make moving away from it look worse for governments than sticking to it, citing what Semenyuk said, “What is expected today and happens based on today’s expectations, may affect what is possible in the future,” noting that The key is to make the coalition of climate change winners so powerful that stranded assets appear to be an acceptable societal cost, often affecting the few laggards who realign their forecasts later than others.