On November 6th, we got a clever hashtag mention — #climateshot – and a “Global Action Agenda”: Increase investment in agricultural research and innovation to create more climate-resilient, low-emission technologies and practices; Focus at least a third of agricultural research and innovation investments deliver demand-driven solutions across food systems, to protect nature and limit climate change; Showcase successful business models and promote public-private partnerships that deploy these innovations on the scale needed to meet the climate and food security challenge; Forge consensus on the evidence of what works, and facilitate inclusive dialogue among food and climate champions around the world. A lot of the right stakeholders (160 institutions, NGOs, countries and companies) are at the table, and there are four key initiatives: “The 100 Million Farmers Multi-Stakeholder Platform, led by the World Economic Forum. The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) initiative, which brings countries together to find ways to grow more food without growing greenhouse gas emissions. The new CGIAR organisational structure, research and innovation strategy and portfolio of initiatives. ClimateShot allies from the impact investment community comprise over 20 investors, funders and initiatives, including innovative funds aiming to mobilise over US$5 billion in financing to transform agriculture for people, nature and the climate.” And that is where it all falls down. 20 investors, funders and initiatives and $5 billion in capital is not going to transform anything. (Re)Learning from our world indigenous communities how to shift, or shift back, to regenerative agricultural practices has the potential to address a major carbon problem while also making significant strides in stewardship of water systems, all the while feeding the planet and providing economic opportunity to individuals, families, communities, companies and countries. It starts at the grassroots. This graphic, courtesy of Marc Barasch and Green World Ventures, is a hand illustration of a regenerative approach to smallholder farming already employed in Nigeria which at scale addresses a myriad of economic, nutritional and climatological challenges. What is old is very much new again, and requires activation of those 100 million farmers as well as activation of sufficient capital, from far more than 20 stakeholders, to catalyze a global change.
Yesterday a consortium of mostly Anglo and European countries signed a statement affirming a commitment to “deliver sustainable, green and inclusive economic growth to meet the challenge of decarbonising our economies, in line with limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above the preindustrial levels.” The statement covers six categories of targets — Support for workers in the transition to new jobs, social dialogue and stakeholder engagement, economic strategies, local, inclusive, and decent work, supply chains, and Paris Agreement reporting. The important thing we note in this statement is the recognition of the necessity of public/private partnership. The path to zero requires industry and market-wide activation of capital and corporate infrastructure in the private sector and regulatory and reporting frameworks from the public sector that facilitate the private sector’s work. This chart from a May 2021 International Energy Agency (IEA) report “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for Global Energy Sector” provides an excellent overview of the business and industry targets that must be met with the facilitation and support of both governments and NGOs over the next 30 years. The signatories to the statement make sense in that these are many of the wealthiest industrialized nations that have both the capital to pursue this agenda and a high degree of responsibility for having brought us to the climate precipice. However, the lack of presence from Australia, China and Japan is concerning as they must help lead among the community of nations as the most developed and prosperous (polluting) countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
Jair Bolsonaro isn’t there either. While the President of Brazil is not in attendance, the country is still represented, but one is forced to wonder what the degree of commitment is when the boss chooses not to attend for “strategic” reasons. On the positive side of the ledger, even with Bolsonaro’s absence Brazil signed on to the pledge between 100 signatory countries to end deforestation by 2030. And reinforcing our point about the real action being with private enterprise and not with government, dozens of global financial services companies also are committing to discontinue investment in and financing for businesses and other concerns engaging in or profiting from deforestation. Today’s charts look at the trends and patterns in Amazonian deforestation. Brazil made great positive strides over the past decade dramatically improving over the prior twenty years. However, with Bolsonaro’s election we observe a significant jump in activity in 2019, and expect similar increases in 2020 and 2021 (not yet reflected in the data). The second chart from NASA provides a visual representation of reduction in vegetation in the Amazon in a period between 2000 and 2008 to illustrate the patterns of destruction. Ironically, note that the pattern looks like leaf veins, propagating from main roads to local roads and spreading out into the forest until larger and larger tracts of land are cleared. Crops like soy account for much of the native vegetation cleared, and one of the biggest importers of Brazilian soy in the last couple years is China. No Bolsonaro. No Xi. Starting to see a pattern there too?
We will spend a bit of time in the coming days highlighting charts we think are material as they pertain to the finance aspects of the UN Conference of the Parties (COP-26) taking place in Glasgow. Our starting point for expectations on outcomes for COP-26 is low. There might be a few more reasons for optimism than there were going in to and coming out of the last convening that Sec. Gen. Guterres basically labeled a failure. But, with two linchpins in the global climate machinery – Russia and China – not present, even total agreement by the attending parties amounts to a half measure. More importantly, we do not believe the answer to the climate challenge resides in the hands of nation-states at the governmental level. As can be seen by these charts from the OECD on how many billions of dollars annually are deployed globally to address adaptation and mitigation across sectors, this is the proverbial small-barrel solution to a big-barrel problem. Many estimates rise into the trillions of dollars USD per year that must be mobilized in order to achieve the stated goal of avoiding the 1.5 degree scenario and address the adaptation and mitigation needs for climatological changes that are already established. That can only come from markets and industry, so the best possible action in Glasgow would be for governments to agree to create the conditions for private (and public) enterprise to succeed and thrive in building a better climate future and then get out of the way. [Charts from Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2019 data, OECD iLibrary]
Natural gas prices around the globe are elevated, and as the colder winter months in the Northern Hemisphere approach, prices will likely remain so. An unfolding potential crisis is most acute in the Eurozone where natural gas futures prices have increased over 500% in the past year, and conditions in the rest of the world are not much better. Calmer weather in Europe and thus lower wind turbine energy production has been cited as one reason for elevated prices, and rising demand for natural gas as a lower-carbon transitional fuel away from coal and oil is another. Unchecked, the higher price environment may lead to blackouts, heating shortages in colder regions, and forced plant shutdowns, and may exacerbate current and broader inflationary trends. Also, higher utility prices are effectively a tax on consumers (hitting lower wage earners the hardest) hastening an end to the global economic recovery that may be already moderating or even stalling in some parts of the world.
Climate change imposes an indiscriminate tax on everyone. Increasing fire, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes, and coastal inundation are destroying private property and public infrastructure at an ever-increasing rate. But, there is no “they” to pay for it. We are they. And, it is not just the damage to places and things. There is a human cost in terms of lives and livelihoods, but also in the labor of countless emergency service workers, utility workers, etc. who go to work when a blaze needs to be battled or families need to be rescued from the roofs of their homes. People who do the brave work do not come cost-free. Even if they are volunteers they need resources to do their jobs. Looking locally, capital is being consumed in the tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars here in the US not to create the next bridge, highway, dam or sewer, but to repair or replace what was already there. The cost of adaptation and resilience to climate change will accelerate away from us as well if the trajectory of change continues as it has. There is no path to higher global temperatures that does not include a tremendous economic burden falling on the backs of the global citizenry. We can pay the tax when the bill comes due, or we can seek out more capital-efficient ways to mitigate climate change and climate risk before it gets worse, including pricing that risk properly in the capital markets.
We are back, but maybe China is not. China’s purchasing manager index for exports has signaled a decline since April’s reading of 50.4 (a reading below 50 suggests a deterioration in conditions). This data series is interesting in the current inflation debate because it is a barometer of global trade and aggregate demand. If demand is weakening while headline consumer and industrial prices remain elevated, that suggests that the supply/demand balance is being dominated by supply-related issues. This could make sense given the numerous instances of supply chain bottlenecks, transportation issues, etc. that we have discussed and that continue to make headlines. Consequence for the markets — this may be another reason why the Fed may be dovish for longer. [chart courtesy Bloomberg LP (c) 2021]
