I want people to use this information to become anti-fraja. I don't want people to be centralized. I don't want people to be dependent on the system that is so destructive to our society because if they're dependent on the system then they'll put their energy, their resources, their effort, their lives towards maintaining the system. And I think that's one of the problems of their society is because there are so many people invested in the system that they have no way out so they're working for the system and the system is a perpetual loop that is basically destroying us, right? So keep this in mind. Now I'm going to pop up some charts here. Take a look at this. This is one of the graphs that really triggered this discussion that I thought we'd start talking about this stuff, right? Now this guy Blair Fix is... he's coming out of the discipline of Jonathan Nitzan with, under his studies, one of his students, that I believe he's finished his PhD or master's or whatever it is, but he's doing a lot of work in processing data and if you want to look at some data it's not a bad idea to follow his Twitter feed. He presents some nice data and it's fun to look at, right? And we put out a couple of videos on Jonathan Nitzan, Jonathan Nitzan's differential accumulation where I had a minor correspondence with him. I sent him a video that we did and he replied, you know, correcting a couple of things I was talking about just using the right terminology and I talk about it in this video if you want to know where this person's tweets are coming from, this data is coming from, right? And I highly recommend following Jonathan Nitzan and if you're into economics, looking at what he's presenting, okay? And specifically under the umbrella of capital as power, it's sort of a terminology vocabulary that has entered my psyche that I've been using a lot, which is very much a beautiful descriptive phrase about how our society functions right now, okay? Now as for this graph, what you're seeing here is the rise and fall of the British Empire has written in relative energy consumption per capita, which is fantastic, right? Now this graph, you can see the time, the years are at the bottom and then what does that say? Relative energy per capita, you know, relative energy use per capita and it's pretty intuitive, right?  This is the first graph we're presenting, by the way, Mahmoud. So I think you'll appreciate this and Mahmoud, this links up to in the end, I hope you can stick around for the two hours, this links up to oil, petrodollar, Iran, foreign policy, okay? Now this is energy consumption per capita and it's very much sort of a life cycle, right? You can see for us, human beings as well, we consume a lot of energy, a lot of energy, we have a peak and then we die off and boop, off we go, right? Empires, any entity really follows the same model, right? And this is UK Empire, follow, what is it? UK energy per, used per capita relative to world average, right? So as the world expanded, populations grew and the British Empire collapsed, their energy consumption came down. Pretty intuitive. Elder God, I'm glad you're catching this one. You got this one? UK Empire, right? Energy consumption per capita in UK Empire relative to its time span, really, and the peak, you know, it's got little markers there and stuff like this. And in the description of this video I'll probably have links to all, not all, but most of the images, tweets, graphs, websites that we're going to be referencing information for, okay? 18, 20 I guess. Yeah, around there, 1900, which was, would have been it, right? Now keep this in mind and here's another one. This is US energy consumption per capita, okay? So the title for this is the rise and fall of the American Empire as written in relative energy consumption per person. Now I can't say US Empire has collapsed completely and it's pretty much on the downturn, there's no doubt about it, right? Industrial revolution, sure, Gina, how are you doing, right? So you can see here that the US has a double top. This is something that occurs in the stock market as well, right? Sometimes stocks do double tops, right? So all these graphs sort of relate to the stock market as well, which is pretty cool. And keep in mind, these, both these graphs, right? Keep, remember where the one value is. One is, which is right here, whoops, right here. One is here right now. One represents the world average from one understand this graph. I didn't dig down too deep, but it's more intuitive feel for this, right? And then the US, the one is further down, right? So the US is much higher than the UK, right? Even though it peaked at, what is that, seven, seven times relative to the world, now it's down to around four times relative to the world, right? If they're Chinese graph, haha, water exile. The next one is China, indeed. We're talking about global politics, global economy, economy and stuff. We must include China because that is the rival, right? This year, Iran stock market was like this. What is the definition of unit energy per use? It's, it's an average, right? I believe what they did for this is took energy consumption globally, took that as the average and then went to each region and calculated that per capita, right? And whatever that was would be the multiple that you see on the y-axis. I believe that's the way they did it. That's, that's, that's the way I would have done it, right? Now if you take a look at this, this is the graph of China's energy consumption per capita. 1975 year or something and then it's just going through the roof, right? Remember Nixon going to China in the 1970s, I believe, right? Early 1970s, late 1970s, was it? Mid-19, not late, but mid, early 1970s, late 1960s, when did Nixon go to China, right? All of a sudden you see this energy consumption go through the roof, right? Keep in mind the one is up here, right? So that's one for China. So China is now, energy consumption per capita is more than the world average. But keep in mind that the US is still much more than the US world average. US is four times the world average and this is, you know, it's taking everything into consideration, right? China's going to either or not. Also notice where the one is. Yeah, Seoul, UK. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Very important. However, the Chinese graph is going like this. To turn that around, it's not going to flip down, right? So China's going like this. US is like this. Where they meet is very crucial, right? Where they meet is very crucial. Cheryl, 1972, Nixon went to China and that's going to come into play in another graph that we're going to talk about. Okay. So this is important to keep in mind depending on where you live in the world, right? Here's another graph from the same person. Okay. This graph only goes to, yeah, I know. Seoul, UK. We're not going all the way to 2021. Some of the graphs are going to go all the way to 2020. Some of the data I'm going to present, you know, go 10 years ago because we're looking at the trend. We're not looking at specific time points. Okay. So it's just the data available to me, right? The US graph goes to 2020. Okay. So here's the US graph. Let's show that again. So US graph is here. So if that was 2005, is it 2020? Oh, ignore me. Okay. So check this out. Here is another graph which I thought was useful. Okay. This is related to the stock market. Now keep this next graph in mind when we pop up some graph in the stock market, right? Because we're going to hit something else before the stock market. But here is another graph that Blair presented. If you want to understand the stock market, Bechler and Nitzan, and that Jonathan Nitzan and Bechler is the other person that works with Jonathan Nitzan in differential accumulation, capitalist power website that they have, where they present a lot of information. It's, if you want to follow economics and world events, current events, I highly recommend subscribing to that information. They are economists. They are presenting data that you will not find in any other mainstream or even most of the alternative economic mindsets that you're going to look at, right? So the description of this graph is this. If you want to understand the stock market, Bechler and Nitzan's power index is a good starting point. It's the ratio of the S&P 500 to the average U.S. wage. The movement of the power index is revealing and scary. We are currently in uncharted waters. Indeed, indeed, indeed. And you can get a lot of information from this graph or certain types of information from this graph. I definitely knew I wasn't. Water gets gathered. Buffet index coming. No, Buffet index. I'm not a fan of Warren Buffet. So his is the legacy system. His is the system of co-opting government and passing regulations in large part, right? So I'm more of a fan of decentralized. Buffet is more a fan of centralized power, right? But take a look at this thing. This is power index one. Basically, the power index is equal to the S&P 500 price divided by average U.S. wage. So what this is saying is that the stock market is the highest it's ever been relative to U.S. wages. So it's basically the U.S. stock market is out of reach of the general citizens of the United States, right? That are living on wages. So there's a couple of ways you can take a look at this or interpret it or more in a couple of ways you can interpret this. One of the ways you can interpret this is this is a bubble, right? Another way you can interpret this is this is inflation, right? Those are two ways you can look at this, right? Branching off from that corruption, money laundering, theft, trickle-up economics, multiple things can relate to that, right? 21st century February, inflation, bubble, and M2. Sol, I like the way you think. We're going to look at the M1. We're not looking at the M2. We're going to look at M1, but that's coming up. But before we get into that stuff, so keep this graph in mind as well. I'm going to pop these guys down because right now we're going to mainly focus on the United States because the United States is a driving mechanism of the world economy based on energy consumption, if you want to think about it, right? Energy consumption four times the world average, right? Important, important. How do you, how do people from low social economic backgrounds learn to tap into these bubbles? Or is it completely important? It's water exile. It's not completely impossible. It's about education. It's about understanding the market. It's about mathematics, right? People need to learn mathematics to be able to take advantage and understand how systems work and decide where they want to be, right? Came a waters high. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well. Welcome to our live stream. Now, since we're talking about the United States right now, okay, because we're going to focus on this a little bit because it's connected up with a whole bunch of other things. I'm in Canada. Whatever happens in the United States affects me greatly. Hence, I'm focused on the United States, right? Here is, now this is from 2013 gang, okay? On our discord page, I linked up a video sort of running through US budget, okay? What the United States is going to be spending and I believe started from 1960s or 1950s. And it's a video of this sort of pie chart going through where the mandatory spending is and discretionary spending is and how much the military spending is. I think it was more of the discretionary spending chart, right? Where it showed the military spending coming down going up, right? And I'm going to show you those guys as well, right? Kimi Juarez. I really regret that my country, countries does not have a STEM education system implemented, not in my time. And no, it's everybody's responsibility to educate yourself. Really gang. The centralized education, we have a STEM rollout in Canada and the United States does, but the education systems horrendous, completely garbage, right? So it's up to each individual to make sure you educating yourself. If you're depending on the centralized power to educate you, they are not going to educate you. Okay, Seoul, UK. Canadian Central Bank talked about choosing a time and a place to consider blockchain currencies last week. Yes, Seoul. They're trying to eliminate cash in Canada and in most of the Western world. If they eliminate cash in our countries, we're basically serfs. We're slaves. We have no privacy, no anonymity. We're done for, right? So, and I wouldn't trust the whole point of blockchain technology is to decentralize currency, is to decentralize information. When governments are coming in saying they want to use blockchain technology to roll out the new currencies or what not, well, that's totally centralizing it. That goes against. It's like saying war is peace, right? It's total opposite. Laugh out, love, Boney. How are you doing? Oh, my God. Going to throw in some politics. A certain cinema chain wants COVID password for entry government response, whatever you want to do. Crazy. I feel like I had the free choice to burn me in the work market. I really do my best to educate. Yeah, you have to. I had to re-educate myself. Uh, many times over. Okay. Many times over. So this pie chart that we're looking at, right? Mandatory spending is in the dark blue, which is what the United States has to spend money on, right? And that's like, we're going to look at the chart here. Let me show you what, uh, mandatory, uh, here's the breakup of it, right? So this is basically a president proposed total spending for 2013. And this is discretionary spending and interest on debt, right? So the mandatory spending is Medicare and social security, mainly, right? That you see in the bottom pie chart with the dark blue and the yellow. And then the discretionary spending is military, uh, interest, food, agriculture, stuff like this, right? So what you're seeing here, and this is 2013, it, it, it pretty much follows the same pattern, except for one thing. I want to show you this, um, graph right now. So keep this in mind. Actually, before we show this graph, let me show you a couple of other pie, uh, pie charts. So important to remember, right? What, what the United States spends money on.  And then there's a certain chunk there that goes towards interest and the interest is right now interest rates are zero, right? Once interest rates start going up, oh my, oh my, oh my. Let me take these two guys down and let me pop up these two guys. This is the breakdown of the discretionary spending and the mandatory spending for 2013. You guys can take a look at this, but the main thing you want to take a look at is the, well, the mandatory spending, huge chunk of it goes to social security and Medicare, right? The rest of it broken down between food and agron, that stuff. The discretionary spending is what they can make a decision on to spend on basically. More than 50% is going to military and then you got education there, government, housing, all that jazz, right? So more of it goes to military. I'm just going to get caught up with Chad. I'm going to keep this graph up there for a second. Okay, at least you pie Charles Larkberg. Yeah, I'm very disappointed in our U.S. education. We're supposed to be the richest and the most powerful country, yet the U.S. can't provide something simple as food, education, health, shelter, and the environment. Thank you. Yeah, Larkberg, crazy. Thank you for existing. I'm adoring you and the content you're providing. Congrats for my pleasure and thank you for being here, Saul. Compared to the rest of the world, the clarity is doing really well. So what do you compare to? What do you compare to, right? I think the only comparison that you can really do is got to be relativistic and you got to compare to yourself as well. LaFa LaToni redeeming points, 1,000, 1,000, 1,000, 4,500. Oh, my God. Stop that. LaFa LaToni at some point we're going to do auctions and give stuff away, right? You can bid on that pie chart will need to be bigger for Biden. Now, take a look at this. Remember this, discretionary spending and mandatory spending. And I'm going to pop out this chart again, this pie chart, mandatory spending, discretionary spending, right? And here's a graph. What's happened is mandatory spending, there's a deviation for until mid-1980s, right? Mid-1980s, discretionary spending and mandatory spending, they're pretty much shattering each other. In the mid-1980s, when certain political mindsets took place in the United States, you're seeing a deviation, right?  And that's continuing. And right now at the end, mandatory spending is going like this, discretionary spending is going like this, right? So there's a huge break here. So what you're seeing and what this means in the above pie chart is mandatory spending is going to take a bigger chunk of the US spending, right? Important, important, important. Let's take this down. Let's take both of these guys down. Now, what is spending? Well, you need the money to spend, right? Where do you get the money? The United States gets this money through taxing, do they tax corporations anymore? Basically payroll tax and personal tax and this is food sales, oil tax, they get all their money from there, right? But somewhere they generate the money, right? I thought I have to redeem them to use it in auction. You do, but you haven't, you haven't, when you bid on something, then we ask you to redeem the points and then I supply them. So what the, what just happened to my, they go into never, never, never, what I can do to laugh out loud, Tony, I'm going to remind me on Discord, I'll reimburse you these redeem points. I'll reject them. When I reject them, they come back to you. And then during the auction, you can use them up. You'll reserve them. Can I have them? I'll laugh out loud, Tony. Just remind me on Discord. Remind me on Discord to do this, okay? Remind me on Discord to do this, okay? Hold your points gang. At some point, we're going to do auction and give things away again, okay? I'm thinking about doing multiple versions of these things. Now, money supply, okay? The Federal Reserve of the United States, which isn't really of the United States as a private organization in collaboration with government, with centralized banks, right? Federal Reserve banks, getting together, deciding on the money monetary policy, right? How much money they're going to make available and whatnot. Here's the M1 data. We're going to do a little mathematics on this after we finish these graphs because I want to pop these up. I just want to make sure we're not going over time. Okay, cool. This is M1 data. M1 data. Let me read you the description. Just one paragraph. Well, thank you. My pleasure. Make sure you remind me, please. I need some money. I need this time. All I got says. This is so suspicious. Check this out. What is M1 data? Here's just one paragraph that I'm quoting from an article that I wrote many, many moons ago. Okay, I wrote this many, many moons ago. I'm going to link it up in the description of this video. This is from archive.org, my previous website. And the title of this article was 11 of the most important economic events of the last 11 years collapsing the economy in the buildup to World War III. And if you go to point number five, it says year 2006 discontinuous of M3. And M3 is big money that the Federal Reserve was making available and they had to how are you doing? They had to announce how much money they're making available, but they discontinued the M3. So we knew something was up. And we're going to look at graphs that are going to explain to us what was up, right? But here's a little quote from another article that I took, which explains what M1, M2 and M3 are. M1 is the most volatile, equivalent to cash on the loose. M2 is less volatile, equivalent to savings accounts deposits. M3 is least volatile, equivalent to rich folks money, which they park, right? So M1 is how much money was made available by the Federal Reserve. This graph that you see here, this is how much money was made available by the Federal Reserve since this, I believe, goes all the way back to 1970s, right? 1970s. See the graph is, I'm going to point through this. This graph is going up, going up, going up, going up, going pretty nice. It's got a nice incline like this, I guess. And then the 1990s, it flattens. In 2000, there was issues. 2000 is over here, right? And the 2000 and bubble were over here, and they made, they increased the money supply. So you see the graph kick up a little bit, the slope. And then in the 2008 collapse, the scam, right, the money theft, money laundering over here, they pumped, right? They released a few trillions of dollars into the markets made available. And basically what happened was when if you're part of the group, if you have hookups to the people who are releasing this money, they called it QE. Yeah, yeah. QE was supposed to be paying back. Turns out they, hey, let's keep printing cash. Let's keep printing cash. And a lot of us talked about this. Back then, I was writing a lot of articles saying, look, man, this is disaster, right? And I even wrote an article back then, in mid-2000s, 2007, 2008, 2006, saying that food prices are about to double in the next seven years, right? And pretty much in the next seven years, seven, eight, nine years, food prices double. People are like, what are you talking about, Chico? Well, money supply just went through the roof, man, right? And what really happened was trillions of dollars were given to Wall Street and people who were hooked up. And Joe, below me and you, lost their homes, lost their jobs, and the middle class got knocked off a little bit, right? So there's less middle class. There was less middle class in, let's say, 2015 than there were in 2007, right? The middle class got knocked off. They got trended by around, some of the estimates I was reading, anywhere between 15 to 20 percent of the middle class went down to the lower class, right? And one of the reasons was because of the money supply. The money supply went trillions of dollars would put into the market. Citibank became part of the Obama administration. They bought bad stocks. They bought bad property. Inflation went through the roof. They don't call it inflation, but that's what it was, inflation, right? Because the money supply went through the roof, right?  It's really awesome. I'm glad you're enjoying it. QE is just counterfeiting money. Bad money drives out good. And the stuff related to QE is insane, right? We can't get into it in this strain. Maybe we'll get into it in another strain, right? Just know that money supply went through the roof. Now, this was going through the roof. Whoa, look at that steep curve. See that incline there at the end? See that thing there? That's how much money was made available in the last year, right? Let's zoom into this thing. Here's the 10-year chart of the same thing, right? Now, the 10-year chart starts off when 2021, 2011. So we're already in the over here. Let me take this down so I wish I had a pointer on this thing. So we're already over here, right? During this steep curve. Now, this steep curve is pretty steep relative to the curves before that, right? But if you zoom in, right? It doesn't look that bad.  Look at the last year. That's like this. It's like going like this, and then poof, right? Got that? Let's zoom in a little bit more. Here's a five-year version of it. That's a five-year version. Oh snap, right? What's going on? What's going on? Here's the one-year version. One-year version doesn't look that bad, right? Because this is related to something that we talked about in personal finance playlist that we had, right? Where I mentioned, I put out a video saying specifically time matters. Everything's a fractal. It's all relativistic, right? And if you go to our personal finance video, a playlist, you'll find that video. I don't have it linked up right now, unfortunately. So I can't give it to you right now. But basically, he's talking about, if you're in a market, right? Whatever market you may be in, over an extended period of time, you might see the graph, like the talk graph. Holy, come on, look at that movement. But if you bought in, you entered the market here, here, right? It doesn't look that bad. So it's really relativistic. How long you've been in the market, what market you're trying to enter in, and what's going on with that market. Okay, keep this in mind. Keep this in mind because we're about to look at the stock market. Yeah, that's what's pumping the, yeah, yeah, we're going to get into that. So awesome, awesome. Real MC Mike, how are you doing? That's why people got to learn cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin, so that you can protect your money, go into zero from the hyper-influential, what to come, start looking into Bitcoin cash, Monero, Ripple, etc. Bitcoin is somewhat comprised already by Wall Street. Also, see, indeed, there's no doubt that Bitcoin is very centralized. And by the way, again, you don't necessarily have to be in cryptos. You can be in any other assets that you want to be, right? As we're going to talk about on Thursday, I have decided to be in the collectibles market. The collectibles market has seen tremendous growth over the last 20 years. Okay, tremendous growth over the last 20 years, because of inflation, really, because this is inflation. This is money supply, turn on the tap, right? And we're going to do a little bit of numbers here, crunch these numbers. Let me take these guys down. Now, and by the way, the peak that you see here, way at the end there, 40% of the total money supply, M1, categorized as M1, was created in the last year, since the inception. 40% was created in the last year. What the... Should we do a little mathematics? Let's do a little mathematics on this here. Let's do a little mathematics on this. Keep that graph in mind, right? Here's the graph. Might as well, because this is important. This is the graph, right? Here's, let's say 1970. Here is... Let's put on our markers, right? 1970, 70, 80, 90, 2000, 2010, 2020. So 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020. Okay. By curiosity, Kimura says, how do you feel regarding minimum wage? I mean, I believe it locks the current country's growth on the same stage, even if they each year raise one or almost three. Minimum wage is... We can talk about it because they're increasingly involved with that, right? As you saw the stock market S&P, this graph here, where is it? Was it this one? No, not this one. Oh, here we go. This one. As you see here, relative to U.S. minimum wage, the S&P is on unprecedented levels. That means it's out of reach, right? So with monetary policy being this and one, right? With monetary policy being that, floodgates being opened up by the Federal Reserve, just flooding the markets with money. That money is not making it to the citizenry, right? It's not making it to the general jewel below, to Main Street. It's making it to Wall Street because those trillions of dollars, and this is trillions upon trillions of dollars that it just released opened up the gate. What that's done is gone into the stock market, huge chunk of it, right? The S&P price going through the roof and this started with Obama in 2008, right? And right now the last year it's gone into overdrive. That money's gone to the S&P, so what you're seeing is people's wages haven't gone up, but the market's gone up because the money being made available is going to buy stocks and property and collectibles and other things, right? No, I didn't say that there's no education. Okay, the graph makes me feel a little better. Will precious metals save me? Will protect you? I wouldn't say save you. Will decrease the hit, right? Now take a look at this graph. I'm just going to recreate it here, right? So up to 1980s, 1990. Okay, so we got this guy. Let me just do a general, right? So around here and around, so basically a graph goes like this and then it went like this for a while in the 1990s, right? And then in 2000 it got a little boost and then in 2008 it got a little boost, right? And then in 2020 it went here, right? That's basically a graph that we saw, right? If you want, here you go. Let's pop that in again, right? Now this number here is 4 trillion. This number here is 7 trillion. This is just in the last year, one year. Okay, one year. 7T, 4T. So return on investment, inflation, rate of return. Let's do the calculation. We talked about this, right? Present value, value minus previous value, value divided by previous value. And you can rename these anything you want depending on whatever it is you're looking for. This basically means present value, 7 trillion, 7T, we'll just put 7, minus 4, we're going to compare it to this point here. We're not even going back to 2000. We're comparing it to here. Okay. Divided by previous 4. This becomes 3 over 4, which is equal to 0.75, which is equal to 75%. Right? So 75% of relative to the 4 trillion that was available, 75% more funds, more money, liquidity was entered into the markets. Right? So relative to where we were, which is 4 trillion, right? 75% was added of the 4 trillion was added into the markets. Okay. In the last year. Here's another way you can look at it. Okay. You can go, compare it to the 7 trillion. How much, what percent of the 7 trillion dollars is new money that was generated last year? So again, present, present, present value, minus, hold on, let me do it this way. Or you can think about it this way, right? We want to do a comparison to find out what this, how much this is relative to 7, right? And that's 3, right? So you can go 7 minus 4 divided by not 4 by the total 7. So that's 3 over 7, which is equal to 43. What is it? 43% or something? 43%. 43%. So these are the two numbers, two percentages you want to think about, right? 75% additional funds were made available a year ago. Okay. In the last year, relative to 4 trillion dollars that were pumped into the markets, right? And relative to where we are right now, which is 7 trillion dollars, 43% of the 7 trillion dollars was made available this year in one year. Wow. Right? We got that. Let's look, take a look at the Dow Jones. Here's the Dow Jones. Right? Let me bring up M1 again. M1. See a similarity there? Something's going on. The time frames are a little different, right? The graph that you see here goes into 1990, right? So 1990 was the flat curve here, but the Dow is doing this. Let me bring this up, right? NASDAQ is even better. NASDAQ is even better. I stuck with the Dow, right? Just because people talk about the Dow, Dow, Dow, Dow, right? Because Dow is a lot of legacy companies as well that basically they're insolvent, a lot of them. They should be bankrupt, but they're being still popped up, right? It's crazy, right? But what we're seeing here is this peak that you see, what is it? 1996. It's only hard to put it on here. I get distracted with it. America's afraid and they should be. The Chinese are coming. I think in the United States the problem is the natives are restless. The American population is restless and rightfully so because they're being robbed, right? And they're afraid. Indeed, they are afraid. There's no doubt about it, right? So what we're seeing here is this 2008 here. Let's assume here, I don't even know. For the Dow Jones, we're going to go from, it's going from zero, but it's not zero. 1970s, okay, let's say zero, which is not zero. Up to 40,000, really. Not 40,000. Where are we at? We're at 31,000. So let's assume the peak here. Let's make this here. We'll put it here as well. So this is 30,000. 30K. This is going to be 15K. This is going to be 15K, 10, 5, 0, 20, 25, right? So 5K, 10K, 20K, 25K. Apologies because it's really messy but we're trying to get a feel for it, right? And let me take these graphs down. So up to mid-1990s, and we're just going to put little markers here. We're sitting at 10,000, right? And 2000 went up to like 15,000, and then a little flopped out to 7,000. I know that marked it well. And then it went up to, by 2016, it was at 20,000. So 2016 is 20,000. So I'm just going to draw this very general. And here is the kick-up. So let me take these down. Chicho, rule one. To get people together, you need an enemy. Real or unreal? Some people will say invisible. Little ones. So here is the stock market. This is 1990s going up. 2000 bubble crash. The tech stocks, it didn't go down to 5. It went down to around 7. And then goes up to, this is 2008. Oh, sorry, not 2008. The graph should be a little bit better. I'm sorry if I'm sort of killing it a little bit. And then we went up to here. This is 2016, 2019. We're around here. And then it was 20,000, 2018. And then it went up to 29,000. And then it dropped down to 18,000. And now it's on here. Okay. Do you follow, sort of brutalize this? But basically this is what happened. In mid 1980s, the stock market started going up. And the 1990s, not as sharp as the 1990s. 1990s was sharper. So this should be around here. 1990s was sharper. In 2000, we had a downturn. It went up 2008. Okay. And then did another crash. I should have the other crash here. I can't remember if it went up. Yeah, there was another serious crash. And then it went up. And then went up. And basically in 2019 or so, it was sitting at 29,000. And in a matter of a week, in a matter of a week, okay, it dropped 30%. It went from around 29,000 down to around 18,000. At the beginning of 2000, 2020, in a matter of a week to two weeks, it dropped 30%. And then what happened? It went from 18,000 right now sitting around 31,000 in one year. In one year. March 2020 has some of the biggest one-day drops in market history. Yeah, salt. So in a matter of a week, it dropped 30%. Now, if we're going to do the calculation, let's do the calculation. How much did the stock market drop? If we're going to do this in red, let's do this in red. It went from 29,000 now to 18,000. So 18,000 minus 29,000 divided by 29,000. Right? Let's punch this in.  So 18, oops, clear, clear. 18 minus 29. 18 minus 29 calculators minus, I just should put 11, but I'm not, is equal to 11. And then divide it by 29. It dropped 38% basically. Right? It's more like 33% or something, but 30, let's go 35% negative drop. Right? Now, keep this in mind. Keep this in mind. Here's M1. Right? What happened when that occurred with the 35% drop? The man, the legend Smith. Way down here. The Federal Reserve opens up the tap, releases trillions of dollars into the markets. Trillions of dollars into the markets. Free money. Free money. Right? The market goes from 18,000 to 31,000. 31 minus 18 divided by 18. Now we're dividing by 18 because that's what we started off at. This one we're dividing by 21 because we're 29. We dropped. So it's negative. 18. 31 minus 18. 31 minus 18 is 13 divided by 18. 72% increase. 72%. That's insanity. That's insanity. Where did that money come from? To kick up the Dow Jones 72% return in a matter of one year. That's debt on future generations. That, in my definition, is not only inflation, it's corruption. Will something break? Possibly. Now that's the Dow. Right? Let's take a look at Bitcoin. Here's Bitcoin. This is about a 10-year chart. Right? About a 10-year chart. It's nine years or so. Okay. And just because you had a security blanket doesn't mean each person had that kind of investment indeed. Right? People are talking with each other. This is good. Good. This is education. This is Bitcoin. Right? Now, one of the reasons cryptocurrencies blockchain technology came to be was because people looked at what happened in the 2008 scam theft that occurred. Right? And people realized that when central power can do this, right?  Right? This is the real chicho. The charts are back. The charts are back, brother. It's great education too. My pleasure. I'm glad you guys were liking it. Right? So one reason blockchain technology came to be specifically Bitcoin. If you read the white papers that came out, it was basically disruptive animation kicking in as a necessity to save people's wealth. Right? Labor. To save people's capital. Because when central banks, central power can flood the market, like no one would have even imagined in the mainstream media, mainstream corporate propaganda and economic economists would have imagined that the graph that's this slope during the Obama administration when they flood the markets in 2008 with trillions of dollars of funds going to Wall Street and the big banks and the big players. Right? No one would have imagined that when this took, this took 12 years to unfold. Right? 2008 to 2020. 12 years that in one year the graph would look like this. Right? Well, I shouldn't say no one imagined it. People who created cryptocurrencies did. People like me who were writing about in the mid-2000s did. Right? There were many people did, but they didn't have a voice in the corporate propagandist machine to warn people that something nasty is coming our way. It's a storm. Get ready. Okay. So this is the bottom is the Bitcoin graph for about nine years. Right? This one is a five-year chart. For some reason, I couldn't get up to 10 years. This is a five-year chart. Right? And again, should have, would have, could have. Right? Should have been listening to our crypto videos we were putting out five years ago and whatnot. And here's the one-year chart. Now the one year doesn't look as dramatic as this one, but neither does the M1. People freak out. Right? They go, oh, look at the coin. All right? But then, hey, wait a second. Look at M1. But you, but you. All right? What's going on here? There's a linkage taking place here. You could call it inflation. You could call it protection.  Right? Possibly. There's a lot of ways you can interpret this. There's money laundering going on indeed. And then here's the one-year chart, which doesn't look that bad. Right? Relative to a stock market. Have you seen Tesla's stock? Have you seen Tillerate? Have you seen some of the other stocks, how they're behaving? Bitcoin isn't behaving that much differently. However, your returns are pretty damn good. Right? So for example, there's a stock out there called, let me take these guys down. And let me take M1 down too. Okay. Let me just get rid of this down here. Right? So if we're going to look at Bitcoin, Bitcoin a year ago was around 5,000. Right? Right now, it's around 50,000, 49,000. Right? Lark bar. Hey, Chicho, this kind of old news, but how do you feel about the whole Wall Street and GameStop debacle? I put out a video on that, Lark. Take a look at it. We sort of set us a game. Be careful. Be quick on the trigger. It would, I mentioned that when it was around 200 or something, it was probably going to, or 300 was going to probably pop to around 500 and then come down. And that's probably, basically what it did. It went up to 490 and it's down to $50 now. Right? At that levels, if you could short, if it were big money, you were probably shorting the crap out of it. Right? It's a game. Right? It's a game. Right now, it's a trader's market. Right? But here's a price of Bitcoin. Here's what Bitcoin has done. Right now, its price is 49,000. A year ago, you could have bought it at 5,000. And this is going to be your return, which is going to be 44,000 over 5,000. 45 divided by 5 is 9. Right? So this is a 900% return. Right? Stock market in the same year gave you 72% return. Bitcoin gave you 900% return. Right? Okay. This is Bitcoin. Many other cryptos behaved similarly, some better. Right? There are certain stocks that did better. Tilray went from when I was recommending it. Right? Just to, you know, there's a lot of stock. It's not an investment, anything, but just mentioning that, oh, certain things might be doing moves, which are kind of stocks. Right? Tilray, two days ago, hit $67. We mentioned it might be a great time to buy when it was at $3. 67 minus 3. 64 over 3. 21 and a third, but let's call it 21. This would have given you 2,100% return. Tesla, 10 years ago, it was $5 before, after the split. Right now it's 800. So 800 minus 5 over 5. Who wants to do that? 700, 795 over 5. What is that? I love charts and grab Chico's dreams. It's not, Tilray is not 67 anymore. It's now 30. And I don't recommend, this is not financial advice. Do not recommend buying. Okay. 159, 159, 159, 00%. Holy moly. Right? Holy moly. Do I recommend buying? No. But this is not financial advice. We're not talking finance here. Right? So what is this all about? What is this all about? Sol UK, Chico. It's probably worth emphasizing that all of this is euphoric silliness, reaching a term. Sol UK, 100% agree. However, it has a lot to do. It has a lot to do with the money supply with this. Let's bring out green. It has a lot to do with this. It has a lot to do with that. Let's make it blue. Maybe blue turns out better. Blue. It has a lot to do with this. When, when, what was it? 75% more additional liquid money is pumped into the system.  Right? Now, keep this in mind. Okay. I want to take all this down. Now, this is this chart here. By the way, this happened in many other countries, but I don't think there was dramatic as this. Not in the Western countries anyway. I don't think 43% of the total money supply, liquid money supply in Canada was created last year in the United States as once. Right? And that puts a burden on the US petrodollar, right? Or the US dollar. Right? Let me see. Chico. Okay. I sent the link. I don't know what that says, but I'm going to send the link to discord page. General, I came across it last night and I thought it was before. Okay. Awesome. You're wrong. Just watch Iran. Yeah. Iran is another game as well. I mentioned Western world two past year. Yeah. Just Western world. Other countries, yeah, for sure. For sure. Right? But here's, here's, since Muhammad mentioned Iran, here, let's talk about the US, right? India had already had a bit of related correction. Yeah. Now take a look at this thing. Let's assume they're very sensitive to, no, they're very sensitive. Right? Now M1 is US currency being made available. Right? So let's assume we're the United States. We're, have the money here. Right? We're in control of the money supply. Very little. How do you feel about the future of, I don't know what that is. Simple Tron 2000. Now, one thing that the United States has as a buffer, what do you mean? Beyond the mouth of infants. Now, one of the, one of the things that United States depends on, right? That basically is one of the variables that it uses, and it's in its calculus of its monetary supply, its domestic policy, its foreign policy, its behavior. Right? Is that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. Right? So the world's reserve currency means that US dollar is basically accepted anywhere in the world as a means of conducting trade. Right? And that has been the case since after World War II, really. Okay. Since the early 19th century, 20th century 1900s. Right? So the United States has had the pleasure of having the world's reserve currency for a number of decades. And the obligation that the United States has had is to not use the US currency as a weapon. Right? And to be fiscally responsible. And at a point, you could have exchanged US dollars for gold bullion, but Franklin D. Roosevelt killed that off in the 19, in 1933 in the build-up to World War II, and Nixon completely decoupled the US dollar from the gold standard in the early 1970s and 1971, I believe. Okay. So the US dollar, which became the world's reserve currency at the beginning, had the backing of the gold standard. So there was weight to the US dollar. So if you had a hundred dollars in US funds, you could have gone and exchanged that up to 1933 to gold bullion in the banks. Franklin D. Roosevelt took that off. And if you were a foreign nation that had US reserves currency, you could have gone to the US government and said, hey, we want gold back for that. Now Nixon came along and everyone knew that that wasn't going to happen. But Nixon made it official in early 1970s saying that, listen, we're not going to redeem the US dollar for gold bullion anymore. And we don't have enough gold to cover the US dollar, the value of the US dollar. So other countries outside the United States went, well, what the hey, right? Why should be hold the US dollar? Why should the US dollar be the world's reserve currency? Why? If you're this country, or this country, or this country, or this country, or this country, or this country, why should you hold US dollars in your reserve banks, in your reserve? Why should you do business among each other with US dollars only? Why not trade between each other using your own currencies or another reserve currency? Because this thing is no longer backed by gold. It's backed by nothing. And when a country, when a country can do this, print as much money as it wants, then the reserve currency, the value of that money, that's not money as currency, is depreciating over time. Well, the United States had to figure something out. How to figure something out? Because the natives were getting restless, right? So, Chicho, I'm not sure if you're going to cover it in this stream, but you have to look at the CCP, these M1 printing, it totally eclipses the US. Yeah, the US money purchasing power has decreased like 99% over the last 100 years, right? And, Saul, we put out a, you have to look at the CCP, the M1 printing, it totally eclipses. Yeah, like, Saul, I haven't looked at it to your truth, but to me, the way they manage their finances doesn't affect me or us in the western world as much as how the United States deals with its finances, because the US has the world's reserve currency. And I agree, the bubble is all over the place, right? The money printing is insane. And Saul, if you have a good link for that, for the Chinese Communist Party, I'm assuming CCP, that's what you're referring to, if you have a good link for us, link it up in our discord. Okay, that'd be amazing. Are you seeing more streaming points today? Chicho, yeah, they've been printing money for the last 10 years holding USD while putting out yen. Yeah, they're trying to devalue the yen, right? The reason they're trying to devalue it, because they want to stay at a manufacturing capital of the world, they want it to be cheap for industry to come there to make things, right? Because they can't afford decouple themselves from that industry, not yen anyway. That's the direction they're going, they don't want to be so dependent on foreign industry to make stuff in China, and they're trying to turn back some of the environmental damage they've done. I don't think they're really doing it, but that's what they're pretending, or maybe they are, right? But they've built a lot as well, right? So they're trying to keep the sort of currency, by the way, this stuff that you see here is also currency wars as well. It's just me and you, Joe Blow, are not involved in these currency wars, so we're the civilians being hurt in this, right? So what happens here is this. Take a look. The US dollar used to be gold back. It was a reserve currency of the world, and US dollar decoupled itself from the gold standard, so if these people can't redeem the US currency for gold bullion, but they still want, the US still wants the world to be using the US dollar because it gives US power. End of story, because the United States is the only country that is allowed to print US dollars, so they control the money supply to the world, right?  So if you, by the way, keep this in mind, if you want to control the food supply of the world, what do you need to do? You don't need to control the whole food supply in the world, you just need to control protein, okay? Keep that in mind, and water, of course, okay? So the US has to think something out. Here's what they do. What does the world run on, right?  What does the world run on? Boom, boom, boom, energy, energy, energy, energy, energy consumption. Energy makes the world go round, right? Energy, oxygen, water, water as well, but world economy. World economy is run on energy. The cheaper the energy, the faster it churns, right? The more expensive the energy, the economy comes to a grinding halt, right? So the United States goes, yeah, energy, and the United States goes, okay, we're not gonna, these people are restless because we can't give them gold for the US dollars, but we're gonna lock them in, that they have to use the US dollar, right, in trade. How? How are they gonna lock them in? Enter the House of Saud, Saudi, oh my god, I'm spelling Saudi wrong, Saudi Arabia, anyway, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia. The United States in the 1970s, early 1970s, there was the oil sort of hiccup there, where people were lined up in the United States to get oil because OPEC, because Saudi Arabia really controls OPECs or controlled more of OPEC back then, did, just not in the same quantity, it's just not in the same quantity, yeah. There was sort of a oil issue there, right, because Saudi Arabia said, hey, we're gonna cut off the tiles, we're gonna do this, we're gonna kick up the price, do this, do this, do this, all of a a sudden there was energy shortages, right?  And the other thing they said, we need the world to use the US dollar, okay, so we'll give you backing, we'll protect the House of Saud, okay, we'll make sure you stay in power, the dictators in Saudi Arabia, the thing you need to do is do exactly as we say whenever we say it, okay. The other thing you need to do right away is sell oil only in US dollars, right? Only in US dollars. All the countries that need to buy oil from Saudi Arabia will need US dollars to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, plus some of the other dictatorial powers in the Middle East, right, the kingdoms, all the little guys that are put in place, like Kuwait and all that jazz, right? So in the 1970s the United States comes and cuts a deal and there were others as well, right, there was Iraq. Iraq was a US puppet, right? They were only selling oil in US dollars, right? Like if you remember Saddam Hussein was put in power by the CIA to overthrow democratically elected government in Iraq to be installed as a dictator because no democracy in the Middle East, right? Still a better deal than putting an offering up and all the guys to sell the Putin ran up in the survey lake, right? So Iraq was also part of this whole deal, so all these people needed US dollars to buy oil, right? That's how the United States was able to stay as a world reserve currency because they cut a deal with all these different houses, right? Or dictators or puppets they put in power, then these people could only sell oil in US dollars, right? And United States is happy as apple pie and they can do this, right? Print as much money as they want as much as they want, right? Really, as fast as they want. Look at the chart. The last year, holy shmoles, right? 43% of the total money supply in the world and in the United States that is produced through the Fed was created in the last year. 75% additional liquidity was entered into the market relative to where it was in the last year. Right? Well, all is well for the US dollar as long as the world can only conduct business in US dollars, the petrodollar, right? Because why? Because they need to buy oil, right? Energy makes the world go around, right? Now, here's a hiccup. What happens if some of these nations that only sold the US, sold oil in US dollars come out and say, well, we're going to accept other currencies because we don't trust you guys.  We've got enough US dollars. We've bought hotels and airlines and all this jazz is devaluing, right? And our oil is decreasing right? So, their supply of oil is decreasing but the money they're being paid with, the currency they're being paid with is also devaluing. So, they wanted to diversify. One of the countries that wanted to diversify was Iraq. They said, we're willing to accept other currencies. This was in the late 1990s or 2000 I believe, Saddam Hussein came out and said, you know what? It's not just the US dollar. You can also use the euro to buy oil from Iraq, right? Well, if this happens, then there's pressure on the US dollar and the US dollar is losing its reserve standing, right? And it wasn't just Iraq that said they were going to do trade outside of the US dollar. They were a handful of other countries said it as well. See a pattern there? Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, all of them came out and said, we're willing to trade outside of the US dollar. Iran went as far as creating an oil bruise where people could trade oil outside of the US dollar. Well, snap, crackle, pop.  Not happy, happy USA, right? Because 30 years ago, US dollars were the only reserve currency and they are the only reserve currency but they, what was it? I believe like more than 90% of the trade in the world 20 years ago was done in US dollars. Right now it's down to around 80% if I remember my numbers correctly. So what's going on right now is more countries are doing trade outside of the US dollar, right? And that's putting pressure on the US dollar, right? Because they don't need to hold US dollars anymore. They can hold other currencies, right? And there's basket of currencies, SDR and stuff like this, but we won't get into that. There's other currencies. There are people doing trade between each other in the wrong currencies, Russia and China being one, right? So they're decoupling themselves from the US currency, right? Lark Park. Have you heard the latest from RT US Secretary of Building Airport in Syria near or the US secretly? But yeah, it's crazy man, right? And Syria, by the way. Oh, we forgot one of the main ones. Syria, right? Do you believe the Obama Democrat water exhaust aspirations for closer trade alliances to the EU have something to do with preserving the integrity? A lot of things have to do with maintaining the integrity of the US dollar, right? Because right now the US is sitting there, and 20 years ago when Iraq, Iran, Venezuela said they're going to decouple from the US dollar, the United States said, well, we need to do something about that. What were the choices you as an individual, right? If you had a business and a lot of the people that you were dealing with refused to buy your product, what would you do? What would you do? You could make them a better deal. When I talked to one of my students about this, the student was talking about, I asked them, what would you do? And his reply was, well, you give them a better deal. What if these people aren't willing to accept the better deal? What would you do? I said, you would give them a better deal. I said, okay, the US offers them a better deal. They refuse. What do you do? What do you do, especially? What do you do, especially if more than 50% of your discretionary spending is spent on the military? What would you do? Elder God, give them freedom. Exactly. Right? Put an embargo on Iran, economic embargo, no trade on the SWIFT system. You can't do trade. There's lots of issues there, right? Venezuela embargo, annihilate Libya off the face of the map. They wanted to bring a gold standard, African currency. 10 years ago, Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, highest standard of living in all of Africa. The United States, the UK with this NATO allies, including Canada, wiped it off the face of the earth, right? How so? It's still there, but there's slave, open slave markets, right? In annihilate Libya. In 2000, Saddam Hussein said, no more US dollars. We're doing oil and euros. What do you do? Invade them, annihilate them, take it over if you can, right? What does that do? Wow. These people that needed oil from Iraq, they had euros, they wanted to buy it. They can't, they need to get US dollars again, right? They can't buy oil from Iran because there's a whole embargo on it with banking systems or Venezuela. Oops, Libya, they're producing oil, but the EU, France is just taking it, right? What are they doing in Syria? What are they doing in Syria? Well, Trump, boy, said it, occupy their oil fields and take their oil. That's exactly what they did, right? What did the new administration do? Biden, first thing they announced, one of the first things they announced in the first week, we're increasing the troops in Syria. We're going to occupy their oil fields and take their oil. All of that is related to this. All of that is related to this. All of that is related to this. All of that is related to this. All of that is related to this. All of that is related to this. What we need to do as individuals to make ourselves anti-fragile is decouple ourselves from this system. It is ridiculously important to decouple yourself from this system. Not Larkberg. Decouple yourself from the system and there is ways you can do it and we've talked about it in our personal finance videos. It is extremely important to educate yourself, to make sure you have multiple sources of revenue that you're not invested in this current economic system. All your eggs anyway.


First is around the rationale for basing out coal-fired power stations. Second is to talk a bit about an international framework. We are doing so in some of the policy mechanisms of doing that and some of the issues and practicalities are doing so. Third is around some of the political economy issues that arise from basing out coal and how those can be managed. And then finally and briefly a bit on how some of these developments and issues might affect coal companies and investors of those companies. So, why must coal go? And there are a number of reasons why we should be basing out coal-fired power stations around the world. The first of which is air pollution. So, in the UK alone, according to a recent study, 6,900 people die each year as a result of coal-related air pollution. And that costs the NHS several billion pounds a year. That story is of course replicated in other countries. It's much more acute in other countries. There have been studies of China and literally how millions of years of people's life expectancy has been reduced because of air pollution in China. And a good chunk of that air pollution is from coal-fired power stations. It's also from vehicle emissions and cookstones, but a lot of it is from coal-fired power stations. Another reason is water stress, and in a changing climate, and indeed with more people using water and consuming water, and more industries consuming water, water availability is a very important problem. And coal, particularly for the sufficient coal and lots of coal-fired power stations using once through cooling methods, use a lot of water for their cooling, so it contributes to water stress in water stress parts of the world. The mining of coal, for coal-fired power generation, of course, destroys natural landscapes. And open-cast mining and other mining methods can have a very significant impact on local landscapes, and that can destroy indigenous lands and other areas of outstanding natural beauty. Another reason is around governance and safety. So mining accidents kill about 3,000 people a year in China, 1,500 people a year in India. Those numbers vary each year, but it's quite a significant number in other places as well. And then in terms of governance and corruption, coal companies, coal miners, there are a number of cases that one could point to where land rights and things have been acquired in a pretty dodgy fashion, where taxpayers' citizens have been defforded from the use that they might be due from coal mining companies, and, as I said, a number of examples of that. And then, finally, there is climate change, and the fact that coal contributes, coal-fired power generation contributes 20, 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions to many of the study you look at, which report you look at. So in the context of the Paris Agreement that was agreed in December dealing with coal-fired power generation and its emissions is really keen for delivering on that agreement to try and keep temperatures well below 2 degrees. Now this slide just shows you, it's from the carbon brief, and it shows you the number of years of current emissions that carbon budgets would allow for different levels of warming, and the probability of achieving that level of warming or that level of warming. It's a bit small, but basically it's a, so for example, to have a 50% chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees, we would have about 10 years of emissions at current levels, and to keep about 2 degrees, it would be 20, 80 years, and for 3 degrees, 65 degrees, so if you want to aim for 1.5 degrees, which is what the Paris Agreement is talking about, we have a 50%, if you want a 50% chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees, that's 10 years of current emissions, or 6 years if you want 66% chance of keeping to below 1.5 degrees. So those are very stringent, very demanding targets and give them the role that coal-fired power stations play in generating emissions from the power sector, it's critical that they are phased out. This is from a bit of work that colleagues of Oxford have been looking at the idea of committed cumulative carbon emissions. So cumulative carbon emissions, the carbon budget is what drives warming and climate change, and so each of those warming targets has a different carbon budget, and this is looking at how existing power stations on the system, if they exist and generate electricity and produce carbon emissions based on their life expectancy, it calculates how much carbon will be emitted. So you see the carbon budget again, small. So that's the total carbon budget for 2 degrees, a 50% chance of achieving 2 degrees. That's all the carbon that's emitted from 1870 to 2010, that's the remaining carbon budget. These numbers are at your time of date. This is what was emitted from 2011 to 2013 and that gives you the 2014 carbon budget, which of course is going to be less now. So if you split up these different budgets between different sectors, here's the amount that you would allocate to electricity generation. This is the amount that's committed already from existing infrastructure that's already on the system power station that it is today, and that's your budget remaining allocated to future power stations that might be built. The pressing thing is that this tracks the carbon budget remaining. This is emissions from the power sector. These lines are emissions profiles depending on different IPCC scenarios, but they keep you within 2 degrees. So we're looking at, to distill it down, basically we would have built the infrastructure to lock us in to 2 degrees if you're quite conservative about the IPCC scenario by 2070 and 80. So that's like next year. Or if you're a bit more ambitious 2027, 2028. And these figures are being refined at the moment by colleagues. It actually looks like it's probably already happened. So this year or last year we've actually locked in a 2 degree budget because all the stuff we've really built, and if you assume it's going to be producing emissions, we've achieved that. So if you want to get 1.5 degrees, you really do have to do a net dismantling of different assets around the world. Now the other thing about coal and coal and CCS, so some people talk about coal and CCS being a solution, is that we've got to make sure that the power system, the carbon intensity of the power system falls quite significantly, very dramatically in fact, to deliver on 2 degrees of 1.5 degrees. So this is from the other way. And this shows that this is their plot for how the carbon intensity of the global power system should fall from 2050 to 2050. So it goes from something like 500 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour to basically 10 or 20. And then we'll have to go into negative emissions after that. If you look at CO2 emissions from subcritical coal, that's at 900 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, so subcritical coal is the solution for that coal by power station, often using lignite or brown coal, often the oldest side of power station, dreadful of the environment on every level. And then that's supercritical, which is supposed to be much better. And that's not actually that much better in terms of carbon emissions. And then you have ultra supercriticals in the coal industry. We'll talk about the ultra supercritical in the future. And it's up there and then we've got IGCCs, which are basically taking coal and converting it into syngas, and that's supposed to be a bit less efficient than ultra supercritical. And then CCS, if you can actually get CCS, post combustion capture CCS on brand new ultra supercritical by power stations, the average, if you could get them built before 2040, 2037, they would be contributing to reducing the average intensity of the power system. But after that point, they're above the average intensity that you need to be. So this just highlights how coal really, even with CCS, is not compatible with a power system that can deliver two degrees or 1.5 degrees. And the other reason, though, is a lot of policy conversation hinges on your view of CCS. So in addition to those points I was making about intensity, I think there are other reasons that we should be skeptical about CCS and coal and how coal CCS is not a solution. One of the problems, of course, is that CCS deployment is well below the levels you would need to make a significant contribution to two degrees. So there are a couple of demonstration plans. Governments are very reluctant to support these things now. We've got one CCS power station operation on 2014, three more expected by the end of 2016. All of these are heavily dependent on enhanced oil recovery.  So it doesn't seem like a great solution to climate change. There are also CCS on power generation, very significant penalties in terms of efficiency and cost. And of course they are competing with zero carbon technologies like wind and so on, where people are seeing gross cost reductions. There are questions about storage and permanence and transporting CO2 to save geological storage. There is actually finite storage. Geologists will say, oh, there's infinite amounts of storage. You don't need to worry about storage. But actually if you think about, if you start applying some common sense criteria to storage, it's viable, as in storage is economic, you actually do have finite storage. It's not open to them. It's not to be relatively close to where the sources are. And a lot of the assumptions in the modelling about CCS assume that the storage costs and transport costs are very, very low.  We recently did a bit of analysis looking at the ability to do CCS retrofitability and CCS retrofits on coal-fired power stations. A lot of the work that has been done sort of goes top-down. It just assumes that a certain proportion of coal-fired power stations are going to get retrofitability. It doesn't really look at the underlying coal-fired power station. There are all sorts of reasons why you might not want to retrofit a coal-fired power station. It might be very small. It might be old. You don't want to make the capital investment. It might not be near any storage at all. It might be very, very far away from other bits of your power system or industries that might not make sense to connect to a CCS network. So, essentially what we did is we looked at all the different coal-fired power stations in the world and we put together some sensible criteria that we developed with experts and investors and others. So, where are the coal-fired power stations that are relatively young, under 20 years old, relatively large for above 100 megawatts, relatively close to suitable or highly-suitable reservoirs and storage, and the number of power stations that actually fit those criteria is surprisingly, it's not surprisingly actually, it's just a very small number. And so, if you look at the top 100 coal-fired utilities, about 65 of them have no power stations that could be retrofitted based on the very simple and actually quite robust criteria. So, that's sort of why we need to phase out coal, why CCS is not the solution to coal that won't allow it to stay on the system. So, how can we phase it out? Obviously, there are a number of ways to do that. I think that the first thing to do is to think about this more, obviously to think about this internationally. The UNFCCC, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, are very significant, but they require 190 different countries to sign up to these things, and as a result they're very difficult to achieve and necessarily complex. So, I don't think we should try and do a sort of a coal phase-out agreement at a UNFCCC Paris Agreement-type level. I think what we do need, though, is some sort of pluralatural effort amongst some of the really big users of coal, and there are some sectors where those sorts of efforts could be very effective. Coal is one of the forests of another. There aren't that many countries that are deforestation. Cement is another. There aren't that many countries that use coals of cement. So, if you were going to target, do a sort of a pluralatural agreement on coal, you would try and involve the top of 10 coal users. The top five account for 77% of coal-fine capacity. Those top five are China, the US, India, Germany, and Russia. And the good news is that there are G7 economies that are already committed to phasing out coal, Buk. The first country in the world to use coal for electricity in 1882 became the first major economy to announce phasing out coal, which will be done by 2025, if not before. Italy, Canada are also quite far advanced in thinking about how to operationise coal phase outs. So, you could imagine a group of countries that might possibly engage in a pluralatural effort to coordinate a coal phase out. And the questions that would need to figure out, I know, when do we close down these power stations? Where do we close them down first? Who pays for this stuff? Not easy, but perhaps a bit easier than I would suggest. Clearly, the thing that would need to happen is that advanced economies like the UK, like Germany, like the US would need to close down their coal-fine power stations first. They could start with the least efficient power stations. They have some Christian coal-fine power stations and then have more time for emerging economies in the Asia, China, Indonesia, and so on to then close down their coal-fine power stations. And if the emerging economies that I just mentioned don't close down their coal-fine power stations in a reasonable amount of time, and we really, the idea of 2 degrees, 1.5 degrees, is just not going to happen, it really does hit and draw on them taking that action. And now I'm going to take that action if countries like the UK and Germany and the US which have really old coal-fine power stations that have paid back their capital costs and returned profits to their investors already aren't willing to close down their coal-fine power stations in time or quickly. There is a question about why downstream, why focused on power stations opposed to mines. So there are groups that are talking about proposing a moratorium on new coal-fines and how that could fit into an international agreement. And I think that's, I'm more interested in, I think the demand side is more effective as a point of intervention. One of the reasons for that is that there are already enough coal-fines operational to find a planet many times over. That's actually the main reason. There are other reasons as to whether there is a moratorium on new ones, doesn't seem to deal with the problem. Quickly on mechanisms, so I'm a pragmatist. I think that compensation for some owners of coal via power stations if they're closed prematurely that they should get some compensation. I think this is particularly the case when they're relatively new and relatively recently, that's more the case obviously, of emerging economies. Older farms in advanced economies, which are 40, 50 years old, a case of compensation is zero. They should be phased out using regulation. I don't think, I can't price emissions trading, there are all sorts of reasons why that's obviously a good idea, but in terms of inducing a timely closure, regulating them out is by far the most efficient. One of the reasons is that utilities that own these assets can try and gain a system that are incentivised to just keep staying on the system because they might want to change policy as option value in doing that, hence you need a regulatory approach. In terms of how you might organise compensation in some jurisdictions you could do reverse auctions to induce closure, so you could set up funds that could be established with funding from governments, rate payers, even the role for that through this crowdfunding who knows, they could be focused on specific countries or internationally they could be focused on some critical or all coal power stations that could be other criteria for prioritising the bidding process. I also think that actually utilities, some utilities in some jurisdictions are actually very keen to get out of out of coal and out of partly to do with the divestment movement and stigmatisation and those sorts of issues, but also the fact that increasing competition for the renewables and gas having a big impact and also every increasing environmental regulation, so requirements to have better scrubbers, pooling improvement and so on. The limiting factor for the ability to close down these power stations is, of course, replacement capacity. In countries with rapid demand growth like China, India, that is a very significant issue, so that would be the constraint on how quickly you could close down these power stations, but with essentialising renewables and interconnection and so on, I think that can be overcome and it has to be overcome. The other way in which to make sure that compensation is allocated in an efficient way in a way that doesn't make sure that great payers have to pay more than they should, options could be operated in conjunction with the architecture of more stringent environmental regulations. You could, you need to provide a bit of clarity in terms of when power stations might be regulated as they might introduce a digression, so that the amount of money that they will be proportioned falls off to the centre line to people to help. But with all of these things, of course, there is, designing this kind of mechanism can be quite difficult, there's going to be a political contestation of these mechanisms, but I think in some places, reverse options, compensation, in a reasonable way to speed up a process and deal with opposition that might be generated. So, just on that, I want to talk a tiny bit about the political economy of phasing out coal. I've said that it's necessary and I've set out some mechanisms for options for doing it, but of course doing it is not going to be straightforward and we need to recognise those challenges and be upfront about considering how we manage some of those challenges. So this shows you, just to illustrate how employment in UK coal mines has changed. So in 1920, there were about just over 1.3 million people working in UK coal mines. That number is now less than 2,000. It's about 1,500. And that transition, that process has taken a long time. What we are essentially saying with the Paris Agreement and with INECs is that that 100-year plus process needs to happen much, much more quickly. Instead of it being 100 years, it needs to happen for key industries like coal in 20, 30 years. And as you can see in the UK, we've had a fair chunk of industrial disputes to do with the restructuring of that big industry and various minor strikes in the 20s, in the 80s. And I think in the UK context, there was very little thought given to how to manage those transitions as a restructuring. So how can you address unemployment in communities and in situations that are going to be effective? What are the interventions that you can take to manage that? Of course, before the minor strike in the 80s, none of that thinking was going on at all. So we need to be much, much smarter about how we do in coal, but also in other sectors. This just shows the first regulation to constrain coal use in the UK was 1273. So it's been a long old process. One of the things that we have now, which we didn't have then, is data that can help us design policy effectively to pre-empt opposition and deal with some of these frictions that might be generated from industrial trade. So we know where these assets are. We know who owns those assets in terms of debt and equity. We know where who works at those assets in those assets, whether it's a mile or a power station. We sort of know roughly where they live. We know who is working on the tax or everything that might be generated. So you can actually do a very, very granular analysis and you can run scenarios about transition and you can figure out roughly when a power station needs to close, roughly when a mine needs to close and then the government can come up with some sensible policy responses to deal with those issues. But we need to do this everywhere. Of course, the places that are going to be suffering in the most acute way where it really is a major issue are countries out in the United States, like China, like Australia, countries that produce a lot of coal domestically into New Zealand. Now, I just wanted to end quickly by talking about some of the implications for companies and implications for investors. So obviously, a coal phase out, as described, would have significant implications on the value of coal companies. But it's not just regulation and international agreement or international agreement on phase out that can affect the value of coal assets. Other things already affecting the value of coal companies and utilities and many of these things are related to the environment. So this is just some of the things that are already having the impact on coal fire power stations in different parts of the world. So obviously there is existing regulation and pollution regulation, carbon pricing and so on. You have physical environmental change, water stress, heat stress actually has a big impact on the performance of coal fire power stations. That's increasing with climate change. Emergence of shale gas is having a big impact. Visigation, NGOs and others suing coal fire power stations. As a case in Italy where a coal fire power station was closed because of a talk claim made by a community nearby that was being affected by pollution. Of course the competition for renewables partly is a result of policy support mechanisms to deal with climate change and that I talked about by Besson earlier. So there are a whole bunch of things that are already affecting the value of coal companies. These will continue. They obviously can accelerate very quickly if there is an international process to phase out coal in a structured way. And all those factors are affecting companies and assets across the coal, coal value chain, people that are doing exploration and obviously mining, exploration, coal washing, transport, shipping industry that they obviously have as well. And we did a big piece of analysis I wrote for you with it. Our relatively recently was published in January where we looked at all the different assets in three bits of the thermal coal value chain. We looked at coal fire power stations. We looked at mines and we looked at coal to gas, coal to liquid plants around the world. And we looked at the top 100 coal fire utilities, top 20 thermal coal miners and top 30 coal to gas, coal to liquid companies. And then measured the exposure of those different assets to some of the environmental risks I just talked about from climate policy through the industry stress and then looked at how which of those companies' portfolios was affected by those risks. And so this is an example of how bottom-up research looking at asset exposure to environmental risk can help investors understand which companies are more risk. It's coming yet more risk than company Y and that can inform actions related to divestment, to shell resolutions, to voting, to engagement. And this is all the risks we looked at. So I mentioned heat stress, renewables deployment and so on. And then you can list for all the companies but which companies have the oldest plants that might be most of risk from premature closure? Expulsion, solar energy number two. Which ones have coal fire power stations that are in areas that have very, very bad air pollution which makes them more likely to suffer from regulations to deal with additional requirements for scrumers or premature closure? A lot of those are in China and India. Which power stations are likely to suffer from future climate change? Taking looking at IPCC data over the next 20 years and some companies have power stations dotted around places that are going to suffer a lot from climate change and that's going to affect the operation. Which companies have power stations in places that have extreme water stress and also power stations that are in those locations that have very water intensive cooling? And so this is the sort of analysis that will help investors to differentiate. It can be extended, the plan is of course to extend this kind of analysis where the risks I talked about are also relevant. So that could be upstream or in a gas. It could be the automobile industry. It could be a real estate. So I will leave it there. But there are a growing number of opportunities for investors to understand risk in their portfolios and that's getting more and more sophisticated.