Ever since the discussions on how to address "manmade global warming" started to gain traction in the 1990s trillions of dollars have been spent on infrastructure, subsidies, R&D, regulations, trading schemes and even political organizations with the explicit intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Alas, the world has changed considerably since the 1990s. Rather than diminishing, carbon emissions have actually increased by a great deal. Developing countries as a whole are now the #1 emitter. And many OECD (mostly developed) countries are trying to manage very difficult fiscal positions. In fact, the only thing that seems to have remained constant is the strategy on how to reduce emissions globally.
"After a quiet Jan/Feb, E&P bankruptcies picked up steam in late 1Q ahead of spring borrowing base redeterminations. By our math, about $30bn of par value debt has defaulted in the HY E&P space YTD, representing about a 17% default rate. On the back of our bottom up analysis we are now raising our full year default forecast to 21% from 17% previously."
A multi-part Zero Hedge series compiling the corruption and manipulation perpetrated by international Banks, Mozambique's governing officials, international investors, Sovereign Nations, and the IMF/World Bank.
Is Obama’s entire foreign policy going down in flames? Or will the entire world end up burning? The NATO summit on July 8-9 this year will probably provide the best advance indication of which of those two will be the outcome from all this.
The Beige Book offered its ubiquitous modest, moderate, mummified growth outlook but added a few points that provide The Fed more ammo for hiking rates: Employment grew modestly since the last report, but tight labor markets were widely noted; wages grew modestly, and price pressure grew slightly in most Districts. The reaction was a further rise in July rate-hike odds (and easing of June and September).
$50 per barrel oil is clearly less impossible to live with than $30 per barrel oil, because most businesses cannot make a profit with $30 per barrel oil. But is $50 per barrel oil helpful? Gail Tverberg argues that it really is not.
For those who need a quick and easy recap of all the main events that took place in the oil and gas services sector, here it is courtesy of Credit Suisse's James Wicklung who present the various "things we've learned this week."
A case can be made that the Beltway – neocons and neoliberalcons alike - do not want a hot war with Russia. What they want, apart from racking in more cash for the Pentagon, is to raise the ante to such a high level that Moscow will back down - based on a rational cost analysis. Yet oil prices will inevitably rise later in 2016 – and under this scenario Washington is a loser. So we may see a raise of interest rates by the Fed (with all the money continuing to go to Wall Street) trying to reverse the scenario. Russia does not want – and does not need – war.. but The Aegis changes the game in the sense that it qualifies as a launch area for US missile defense.
Pity the poor petro-states. Once so wealthy from oil sales that they could finance wars, mega-projects, and domestic social peace simultaneously, some of them are now beset by internal strife or are on the brink of collapse as oil prices remain at ruinously low levels. At the peak of their glory, the petro-states played an outsized role in world affairs. That, of course, was then, and this is now. While these countries still matter, what worries these presidents and prime ministers now is the growing likelihood of civil violence or even state collapse.