Gordon T Long

Gordon T Long

Global Macro Research | Macro-Technical Analysis 





The short answer is NO!. Matter of fact it will accelerate it, justify it and finance it!! How so you ask?
Let me show you the dirty little number the wizards behind the curtain don’t want you to grasp. It is one of the reasons that Powell is under pressure to be replaced by a Fed Chairperson with Climate Change as a priority. When did this ever become even a possibility of being the purview of Monetary policy?

FIRST: The “Global Fear

 & Scare Campaign” to justify global spending of

$150 TRILLION over the next 30 Years!

The Fear:

  1. WATER: Absolute water scarcity is likely for 1.8bn people,
  2. POVERTY: 100mn face poverty,
  3. SEA LEVELS: 800mn are at risk from rising sea levels by 2025.
  4. MIGRATION: Climate migration could reach 143mn from emerging markets, driven by extreme weather.



The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, will be the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference. It is scheduled to be held in the city of Glasgow, Scotland, between 31 October and 12 November 2021, under the presidency of the United Kingdom. World leaders will attend.

COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and the summit will be attended by the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – a treaty that came into force in 1994. COP26 is the next annual UN climate change conference (the 26th).

The reason it’s so important is that this is the year updated country climate pledges (formally known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) are due.

What are NDCs?

Under the Paris Agreement, countries submitted Intended nationally determined contributions, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to a “business as usual” scenario. Under the framework of the Paris Agreement, each country was expected to submit enhanced nationally determined contributions every five years, to ratchet up ambition to mitigate climate change. When the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the conference of 2020 was set to be the first iteration of the ratchet mechanism. Even though the 2020 conference was postponed to 2021 due to pandemic, dozens of countries still had not updated their pledges by the time of the 2021 conference.Future iterations will also take into account the “global stocktake“, the first of which is in 2023.

The Global Stocktake is a fundamental component of the Paris Agreement which is used to monitor its implementation and evaluate the collective progress made in achieving the agreed goals. The Global Stocktake thus links implementation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) with the overarching goals of the Paris Agreement, and has the ultimate aim of raising climate ambition.

“At COP26 we need to work together to enable and encourage countries affected by climate change to: protect and restore ecosystemsbuild defenses, warning systems and resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives.”

UNFCCC Secretary Patricia Espinosa tweeted that “in light of the ongoing, worldwide effects of COVID-19, holding an ambitious, inclusive, COP26 in November 2020 is not possible.”[18] She also indicated that when economies restart, this will be an opportunity to “shape the 21st century economy in ways that are clean, green, healthy, just, safe and more resilient.”

“A successful COP26 means accelerating momentum and getting strong commitments and alignment from the major economies including the US, China, the EU and wider G20 on the pace of change and action being taken during this decade to cut the carbon we all produce.”


SECOND: What Is This Really All About?

WHY IS THIS REQUIRED: The Global Economy and Central Banks are trapped in a Credit & Liquidity Crisis that requires the growth of Debt that is significantly larger than global economic growth of credit is capable of generating.

CONSEQUENCES: The current financial system is so massively over leveraged through 100’s of Trillions of dollars of derivatives, futures contracts, options and balance sheet gearing that if credit and debt is not increased the system will implode implode under its own unfundable weight.

SOLUTION: A Global campaign for Climate Change through an accelerated movement towards Green Energy provides the optimum vehicle for the creation of a stream of taxpayer and debt-funded “investments” which in turn will need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.


We are talking about a plan to spend $150 trillion over 30 years globally. This will average $5 trillion in annual investments – amounting to twice current global GDP!

  • This is equivalent to the entire US tax base, or 3x the COVID-19 stimulus this decade.
    • Will it be inflationary? Yes, expect 1-3% pa shock. This is for the next 30 years… over and on top of any already present inflation!
    • What are the bottlenecks? Geopolitics, climate wars and EM.
    • Do we have the resources? Nickel and Lithium are just two that could be in deficit as soon as 2024.
    • Is green technology really green? Not really (see below).
  • BNEF has a higher estimate that the total investment needed for energy supply and infrastructure could be as high as $173tn through 2050, or up to $5.8tn annually, which is nearly three times the amount invested on an annual basis today.
  • Exponential cost reductions in wind, solar and batteries technologies have made renewables the cheapest form of energy in areas producing >90% of global electricity. Market appetite is chipping in too. Labelled bonds and loans jumped to > $3tn this year, with $3 in every $10 of flows into global equities going into ESG, which will support climate-friendly investments, as well as funding new ones needed to further de-carbonize our planet like green mining, green hydrogen or carbon capture. 
    • Scenario 1: The Fed, ECB and other central banks would subsidize all of the required infrastructure spending to de-carbonize (translation: print the money). 
    • Scenario 2: Assume that they would absorb only half of the new bond issuance.
    • Scenario 3: Assume central banks take up only a fifth of all de-carbonization spending onto their balance sheet.
  • If central banks only have to foot 20% of the bill or less, the impact of de-carbonization looks fairly manageable with respect to inflation. And just so readers know what looks “manageable” here it is: this is inflation on top of whatever inflation is already in the economy. Of course, if central banks have to “foot” 50%, 80%, or more, well… it gets much worse.
  • This is most fundamentally about the need for more global debt, and more monetization.
  • Climate change, “net zero”, Green Energy and ESG provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded “investments” which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.
    • Temperatures have risen a a best estimate of 1.07°C since 1850 due to man-made causes.
    • The sea rise between 1971 and 2006 was 1.3 mm per year. That’s 0.0511811 inches per year. 
    • The sea rise between 2006 and 2018 was 3.7 mm per year. That’s 0.145669 inches per year.
    • Under all emissions scenarios, global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century.


The Covid pandemic has so far led to roughly $30 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus across the developed world. Covid was one giant smokescreen to “allow” central banks and Treasuries to merge and lead us to Helicopter Money and MMT, creating some $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the “Net Zero” myth is what will perpetuate this endless printing for the next 30 years, a period during which the only benefits will be bestowed upon those who benefit from QE and money printing. That would be the richest.


Exploding Energy prices at the pump, for home heating, and creation of electricity is urgently required to make the investment in Green Energy more attractive and fundable. Is the current energy shortage shock simply a “lucky” coincidence?


On February 7 2020, AOC unleashed her Stunningly Absurd “New Green Deal”.

    1. Upgrade all existing buildings in the US
    2. 100% clean power
    3. Support family farms
    4. Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere
    5. Eliminate unfair competition
    6. Affordable access to electricity
    7. Create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages
    8. Guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

The current bill before congress also includes the following provisions within a $3.5T CR to fund the above ideas and additionally enforce and further finance it:

    • $2.0T  — Largest Tax Increase in American History,
    • $7B     — Green New Deal Climate Police
    • $10B   — Green New Deal Slush Fund for Colleges
    •  $2B    — Green New Deal Job Training
    • $27B   — Green Bank
    • $75M  — Green Activists
    • $50B   — Death Taxes
    • $80B   — Small Business Taxes
    • Taxes  — Energy, Employers, Cigarettes
    • IRS      — Double Size (# of Agents)
    • $6B — Charges on U.S. oil and gas operators on federal lands, which could effectively put mom and pop small business, and minority and Native-owned operations out of business, in addition to killing tens of thousands of jobs.
    • Include new methane fees, inspection fees, severance fees, and bonding requirements, as well as additional requirements for operating on federal lands.
    • Increases onshore oil and gas royalty rates on federal leases from 12.5% to 20%. The increase could be unsustainable because of the time it takes to go through a bureaucratic application and review process in light of the costs associated with capital investment and regulatory compliance costs. It takes years to complete required assessments and studies associated with lease approvals, and to invest capital and infrastructure to facilitate drilling, production and delivery.
    • An additional $15 per-acre fee for expressions of interest in public lands with no guarantee that the companies applying for it would be included in eventual lease sales. The proposal might be likened to applicants paying several months’ rent up front with a rental application not knowing if they’d get approved, and not having the deposit refunded if the application is rejected. The rental market would collapse, as no one would apply for a house or apartment lease under such terms.Another proposal shortens the length of the lease from 10 to 5 years, making the lease nearly moot, since it often takes five years for a lease to be approved.

Since AOC proposed her plan we have seen the following initiatives already enacted:

    • Halting of new leases on federal land,
    • Halting of the Keystone Pipeline thereby eliminating of low-cost Canadian crude from being processed by mid-continent and Gulf Coast and U.S. refiners by prohibiting the Keystone pipeline from opening.
    • Increased regulatory burdens,
    • Halted the issuance of new oil and gas leases on federal lands, effectively stopping much production for existing operations.
    • Regulatory burdens imposed on banks have effectively resulted in denying capital to some in the industry is stifling oil and gas production, Heywood Cooper, principal at Houston-based Argos Minerals, told Just The News. “The administration is committed to denying the energy industry access to capital, going down the same road as the Carter administration in the 1970s, which carried over into the ’80s,” he said.


As Bank of America writes in their 114 page report of what is going on here, it’s all about green-lighting the biggest QE episode in history!

We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full de-carbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow. Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse. True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns.



  • I personally support Green Energy. However, I believe it requires a comprehensive and realistic plan that governments and politicians have never demonstrated an ability to orchestrate in any effective and realistic fashion.
  • I believe Climate Change is not about fossil fuel and carbon based emissions but rather the ever shifting true Geo-Magnetic poles. (every navigator understands the use of “Deviation” and “Variation” in setting their compass)
  • The U.N. panel now says (and quietly leaked in “WSJ Op-Ed Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth) the dire emissions scenario it promoted for two decades should be regarded as highly unlikely, with more plausible projections at least a third lower.The report also notes, as the press never does, the full impact of these emissions won’t be manifested until decades, even a century, later. The ultimate likely worst-case effect of a doubling of CO2 might be 4 degrees, but the best estimate of the “transient climate response” this century is about 2.7 degrees, or 1.6 degrees on top of the warming experienced since the start of the industrial age.

The Question is: Why has China and Russia “Excused” Themselves from the COP26 Summit?

“Just as Covid was one giant smokescreen to “allow” central banks and Treasuries to merge and lead us to Helicopter Money and MMT, creating some $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the “Net Zero” myth is what will perpetuate this endless printing for the next 30 years, a period during which the only benefits will be bestowed upon those who benefit from QE and money printing. That would be the richest. As for everyone else, well you great grandchildren or their grandchildren may (or may not) live in a cleaner world. We really don’t know, but if we don’t start printing money now it will be too late.

If that sounds scarier and more manipulative than any religion in human history, it’s because it is.”

Ty Durden – ZeroHedge


Subscribe to view full post content with supporting live charts

FAIR USE NOTICE  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

NOTICE  Information on these pages contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Markets and instruments profiled on this page are for informational purposes only and should not in any way come across as a recommendation to buy or sell in these assets. You should do your own thorough research before making any investment decisions. MATASII.com does not in any way guarantee that this information is free from mistakes, errors, or material misstatements. It also does not guarantee that this information is of a timely nature. Investing in Open Markets involves a great deal of risk, including the loss of all or a portion of your investment, as well as emotional distress. All risks, losses and costs associated with investing, including total loss of principal, are your responsibility.