Germany’s Junge Freiheit reports that the Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht Hamburg) ruled in November 2025 that ten climate activists from the group “Last Generation” must pay a total of approximately €400,000 in damages to an airline.
Symbol photo created by Grok AI
The activists were involved in a sit-in blockade of Hamburg Airport in July 2023. The climate activists cut through the fence and glued themselves to the tarmac. This action led to the cancellation of 45 flights and affected 8,500 passengers
The affected airline, reportedly primarily Eurowings (part of the Lufthansa Group), sued the activists for compensation. The court awarded the airline damages of approximately €400,000.
Some reports mention that, in addition to the damages, the activists could also face legal costs amounting to approximately €700,000.
If the activists fail to pay the sum, they face up to two years of Ordnungshaft (civil detention).
This is one of the highest civil damage claims made against members of the “Last Generation” following a protest action in Germany so far.
Northeastern China was at least 5°C (and up to 9°C) warmer than today and droughts (and floods) were far more extreme when CO2 levels were a “safe” 265 ppm.
In a new study, scientists have determined that northeastern China’s droughts were far more frequent and intense during the Little Ice Age (LIA) than in the 1950-2021 era of supposedly “alarming” global warming. During the LIA, which the study clarifies as spanning from 1568 to 1850, there were 59 extreme dry events (droughts) in this region, whereas from 1850 to 2021, there were only 8.
The authors further assert the frequency of extreme dry events have long been associated with cold periods in paleoclimate reconstructions, whereas extreme wet events (floods) are linked to warm periods.
“Our results demonstrate that Northeast Asia was relatively dry during cold periods and comparatively wet during warm periods. … For example, Northeast Asia experienced a wet MWP [Medieval Warm Period], which was the latest warm period.”
Interestingly, the relative humidity of northeast China during the last 40 years was more similar to the levels during the cold LIA than during the 1850 to 1950 period, when there were frequent extreme wet events and almost no extreme dry events.
In sum, the “mild drought from the 1950s to the present day does not exceed natural variability” when considering the context of the past 454 years.
“…long-term hydroclimate records indicate that both the frequency and intensity of recent drought episodes fall well within the range of natural variability observed during the LIA.”
Several other studies lend support to the conclusion that a warmer climate is a wetter climate. A paleoclimate reconstruction study utilizing the known limiting temperature for rice agriculture suggests not only that summer temperatures were 5-7°C warmer than present (>26°C vs. 20-21°C today) during the Early Holocene, but “summer rainfall was about 30% higher than modern between about 10,000 and 6,000 cal yr BP” (Dodson et al., 2021).
“The current mean July temperatures are about 20–21°C, however, these are estimated to be above 26°C between 8,500 and 4,200 cal yr BP.”
A study published last year (Guo et al., 2024) indicates today’s Loess Plateau mean annual air temperature (MAAT) is 9.86°C, with a mean annual precipitation of 531 mm. From ~2,700 years ago until about 300 years ago the MAAT was 17.02°C (>7°C warmer) and yearly precipitation averaged 903 mm.
The modern era of “alarming” global warming is actually 5-7°C and up to 7-9°C colder in northeastern China (Zheng et al., 2018) than it was during the much warmer Early Holocene, when CO2 was a “safe” 265 ppm.
“…mean annual air temperatures [MAAT] in NE China during the early Holocene were 5-7°C higher than today.”
“MAAT records from the Chinese Loess Plateau also suggested temperature maxima 7-9°C higher than modern during the early Holocene”
Northern China was also much warmer than today throughout much of the last 10,000 years. Using the known growth temperature limit for Ceratopteris as evidence, scientists have determined the mean January temperature in northern China was “7.7°C higher than today” throughout the Mid Holocene (Zhang et al., 2022).
In sum, there is nothing even remotely unusual about the modern temperatures or precipitation in northeastern Asia that would suggest humans are responsible for warming the climate or intensifying rainfall.
Offshore wind farms (OWPs) are considered a cornerstone of Germany’s transition to renewable energies. We are told that they supply clean energy and slow down climate change.
However, a recent study by Hyodae Seo sheds light on unexpected and profound side effects: Offshore wind farms warm the atmosphere and the sea surface more significantly than previously assumed and cause complex ecological damage.
The mechanism of warming
How can wind turbines warm the climate? The secret lies in the vortices and the altered air circulation.
The rotors extract energy from the wind. This creates vortex structures that spread over wide areas.
These vortices weaken the natural mixing of the lower air layers and the surface water.
The natural cooling capacity of the sea surface is thereby reduced. Heat cannot be dissipated as easily, which intensifies the temperature increase at the sea surface. This additional heat rises into the atmosphere.
Measurements confirm this effect: there are slight but constant temperature increases near the ground. In densely concentrated wind farms, these effects can reinforce each other.
Moreover, the impacts are not just local; analyses show that the effects of the vortices extend over more than 100 kilometers and cause measurable temperature increases up to 200 meters in altitude.
Ecological damage, microplastic threat
The climatic changes are only one side of the coin. Marine ecosystems are stressed in various other ways. There are high strike rates for birds and bats.
Also sediment stirring harms the habitats of many marine organisms. The current vortices alter the mixing of the water column, affecting the distribution of plankton and thus the foundation of the marine food chain.
Another particularly severe finding is the abrasion of the rotor blades. During operation, they release microplastic particles, which are ingested by marine animals like mussels and oysters. The warming of the water also accelerates the decay of materials, causing the plastic to spread over increasingly larger areas and interfere deeply with biological cycles.
The silent health hazard: Infrasound
An often-underestimated factor is the low-frequency infrasound generated by the rotors. Although it is inaudible to humans, the pressure fluctuations can trigger physical reactions.
Residents near the coast often report symptoms such as sleep disturbances or persistent inner restlessness. Animals are also sensitive, as even small fluctuations affect their orientation. The local warming of the surrounding air also changes sound propagation, which can intensify some of these effects.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that offshore wind farms set in motion a complex network of turbulence, warming, microplastics, and infrasound. The combination of these factors shifts climatic and ecological processes, shaping both the atmosphere and the marine environment. The results signal that these far-reaching technical interventions can no longer be viewed as isolated or negligible fringe phenomena. In the future planning and expansion of offshore wind energy, these profound repercussions on the regional climate and sensitive ecosystems must be taken into account much more seriously.
In the German language video “Turbokrebs & plötzlicher Tod: Die Fakten auf dem Tisch“ (Turbo Cancer & Sudden Death: The Facts on the Table), Dr. med. Kurt Müller and the host discuss the scientific background explanatory models for the observed increase in phenomena such as “turbo cancer” and sudden cardiovascular death since the intriductipn of the COVID vaccines.
Müller emphasizes that these facts are barely discussed in the general public and mainstream media.
Spike protein can lead to thrombi
Dr. med. Kurt Müllerex Begins by expalining how the spike protein adheres particularly well to the endothelium (the inner lining of blood vessels), anchoring itself there like an arrow, thus leading to inflammatory processes in the vessel walls. Antibodies against the molecule cardiolipin, which is responsible for the negative electrical charge of the vessel wall, were observed in vaccinated patients, reducing the electrical repulsion of blood particles.
He also explains how the lipid nanoparticles (LNP) in the vaccines have a positive charge (which allegedly did not correspond to the approval) and cause them to adhere to the negatively charged cardiolipin and favor the formation of thrombi.
Damage to fine blood vessels
The spikes, he says, act like a “rake” in the bloodstream, alter flow conditions (turbulence) and promote inflammation, which is claimed to be the primary mechanism for the development of vascular changes. An increased number of clumped cells (“Miniklotz”) and amyloid proteins were detected in the blood of so-called “post-vac” patients.
The primary problem is claimed to be the damage to the very fine vessels (microvessels), which ensure the supply to the walls of large vessels (vasa vasorum). This lack of supply can lead to structural loosening and tears in the longitudinal structures of large vessel walls, resulting in aneurysms and sudden bleeding. This is cited as an explanation for “sudden, unexpected death” we’ve often witnessed.
Brain damage
Another troubling effect that leads to brain damage is the occlusion of small vessels in the brain (multi-infarct syndromes) found in post-vac patients. In living patients this manifests as cognitive impairment, concentration problems, and rapid exhaustion.
Turbo cancer
Another claimed worrisome effect of the COVID vaccine is turbo cancer. A shift in macrophage function was observed (away from defense towards consolidation and regeneration), which is accompanied by the increased release of signaling molecules like TGF-Beta and VEGF. These substances are necessary for healing and new blood vessel formation but are allegedly exploited by tumors to accelerate the preparation and spread of metastases. This is proposed as a possible explanation for “turbo cancer” and the more frequent diagnosis at an already advanced, metastatic stage. A UK study is cited, showing a significant increase in certain cancer types from 2021/2022 onwards (e.g., melanoma +74%).
Therapeutic approaches:
Dr. Müller emphasizes that therapy must be individualized, as the problems vary among patients. He warns against believing in a single solution. Apheresis (blood cleansing) is mentioned as a possible measure for acutely reducing the spike protein density and mitigating acute risks.
Dr. Müller says the ultimate goal of research must be to find a way to stop the gene therapeutically transferred cell program that produces certain problems in the body.
Dr. Müller criticizes the role of the media and the lack of willingness by science to correct mistakes.
Fundamental assumptions in projections of alarming, CO2-induced global warming in the coming decades are undermined by a new long-term energy budget analysis.
In a new study scientists have acknowledged the modeled assumptions forecasting nature’s response to the presumed human-driven radiative forcing of ocean heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates do not align well with observations from recent decades.
The apparent misalignment is especially pronounced during 2000-2020 (Fig. 2 in the image), as the assumed uptick in radiative forcing (which is said to be a consequence of rising human CO2 emissions) was not accompanied by an sharp increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). Instead the assumed forcing values are 50% greater than EEI estimates during this period.
When the entire 1880-2020 period is considered, it is notable that the fraction of forcing that delivers heat energy to the Earth has been (much) smaller in recent decades than in the first half of the 20th century despite the assumed cause of the forcing (human CO2 emissions) being several times larger since about 1980.
Consider that from 1910 to 1945 human CO2 emissions remained relatively flat at ~1 GtC/year, but then emissions rose to ~6 GtC/year by 1990 and to nearly 10 GtC/year by the 2010s. Despite this dramatic increase in the assumed radiative forcing from CO2 emissions, the heat uptake (Fig. 1 and S6), thermal expansion (Fig. S17), and sea level rise rates (Fig. S17) were nearly as pronounced in 1910-1945 as they were from 1980-2010. In fact, there was a decline in the heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates from 1945 to 1975 despite the coincident sharp increase in CO2 emissions during this period.
“We find two distinct phases in the global energy budget. In 1880–1980, Earth’s energy imbalance closely followed the radiative forcing. After 1980, however, Earth’s energy imbalance increased at a slower rate than the forcing; in 2000–2020, the imbalance amounted to less than 50% of the forcing.”
Since nearly all projections of catastrophic global warming, ocean heat uptake, and thermal-expansion-driven sea level rise are rooted in the presupposition that dramatic increases in radiative forcing from rising CO2 emissions will lead to pronounced increases in the EEI, scientists are now indicating we may not sufficiently understand these processes and thus we need to consider further study.
“Because the global energy budget before and after 1980 implies very different global warming in the future, further studies are required to better understand the cause of this historical variation.”
Bkackout News here reports that despite ambitious international climate targets and the promise of a rapid energy transition, we are witnessing a paradoxical development: Global demand for fossil fuels has not fallen, but continues to increase.
Image generated by Grok
The world economy’s growing hunger for energy directly clashes with political expectations, and the so-called “Peak Demand” for oil and gas, once predicted by experts, is currently not in sight.
Just a few years ago, there was optimism when the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced an impending peak in fossil fuel demand. This confidence supported many climate strategies. However, rising economic risks and political headwinds led many governments to revise their strategies. The consequence: The energy transition lost momentum while real demand increased.
Earlier forecasts thus have become obsolete, and the expected rapid electrification of the economy is progressing more slowly than planned.
Fossil fuels are not being replaced
A central problem is that renewable energies are currently not replacing conventional sources, but merely supplementing them. We are in a Phase of Addition. Although solar and wind power are being expanded massively, this is not enough to meet the strongly growing global energy demand.
This development is intensified by several factors:
Electrification of mobility: Although cars without internal combustion engines are increasing, the expansion of charging infrastructure is lagging behind.
Heating transition: Replacing gas heating systems with electric alternatives leads to enormous peak loads in the power grid in many regions.
Growing demand: Additional demands for cooling, seawater desalination, and digital services are intensifying the global energy hunger.
As a result, oil remains in strong demand, and gas retains its role as a flexible reserve, blocking a rapid departure from fossil sources.
Steady at least until 2040
Even in less dynamic models like the CPS scenario, the quantities of oil and gas remain stable well past 2040. Global oil consumption remains at around 100 million barrels per day.
This finding shows how deeply the market is permeated by fossil fuels, which remain the cornerstone of supply.
If renewables were really as good as many claim they are, then why have they failed to curb fossil fuel use? Pbviously they are nothing what their proponents claim them to be.
The idea that global warming could paradoxically shut down the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new cold spell—a scenario popularized by the film The Day After Tomorrow—is a powerful narrative.
However, the latest episode of Klimaschau (Issue 237) challenges these alarmist predictions, scrutinizing the scientific evidence and the methods behind the claims. The segment focuses on skepticism regarding the imminent “tipping” of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
Recall how climatologists like Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) argue that Arctic warming is weakening the AMOC due to an influx of freshwater, potentially causing Europe to become colder and drier.
Rahmstorf relied on cherry-picked data
For example, a 2021 study co-authored by Rahmstorf suggested the AMOC was at its weakest point in over a millennium. Rahmstorf has also been quoted predicting the AMOC could completely cease in 50 to 100 years. Yet, a sharp rebuttal by Kilburn and colleagues (2022) in the same journal. This counter-study accused Rahmstorf’s team of using “selective” or “cherry-picked” data to arrive at their conclusion.
The EIKE Klimaschau video presents criticism that challenges the reliability of the computer models often used by the PIK. Engineer and blogger Frank Bosse (Klimanachrichten) dismisses the PIK’s models as inherently unreliable and susceptible to manipulated data input. He points to the actual, unfiltered measurement data from the RAPID Project. This raw data shows the AMOC has been oscillating unspectacularly around a mean value between 2004 and 2024, with only one clear anomaly around 2010. This directly contradicts the models predicting a dramatic collapse.
Arctic Ice: Not Melting as Fast as Predicted
Further challenging the premises of the AMOC collapse theory (which relies on massive freshwater inflow from melting ice), the EIKE video cites a 2025 study by England et al: The research, which reviewed apocalyptic melting scenarios, concluded that the decline in Arctic sea ice has “significantly slowed down” over the last two decades.
Crucially, there has been no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005.
Conclusion
The EIKE video concludes by linking the current alarmist methodology to the historical controversy of Michael E. Mann’s 1999 “Hockey Stick Study”. The implication is that the use of selective, non-representative data to generate dramatic claims is a recurring pattern in certain climate narratives.
A new study finds Earth’s bottom water temperatures (BWTs) have cooled by 2-3°C over the last 4.5 million years through to the pre-industrial era (1750).
Since 1750, however, global BWTs have not risen in a detectable way, nor have they exceeded the warmth achieved during the Medieval Warm Period (Gebbie and Huybers, 2019). The Pacific Ocean as a whole has continued to cool in the last centuries.
Regionally, today’s North Atlantic’s bottom water temperatures hover around 4°C – just as they did throughout the Late Holocene. The BWTs averaged ~5°C, or “slightly warmer than present-day,” during the last glacial, with anomalies reaching 10°C both 13 and 16 thousand years ago and about 7°C both 15 and 19 thousand years ago (Yasuhara et al., 2019).
These global and regional BWT reconstructions do not support the narrative that modern ocean temperatures are unprecedentedly warm due to human activity.
BlackoutNews here reports that the German economy is currently battling massive turbulence as the latest figures on corporate insolvencies reached peaked in October 2025.
The German middle class, in particular, is increasingly coming under pressure amid the ongoing slump.
The wave of insolvencies is not hitting all sectors equally. Particularly hard hit: tranport, construction and restaurants and catering services.
In early August 2025, authorities reported 1,979 corporate insolvency applications, which corresponds to an increase of over twelve percent compared to the previous year. At the same time, creditor claims surged to a staggering €5.4 billion. Adding to the burden on society: With 6,132 consumer insolvencies, this figure is also rising significantly.
High energy prices
According to Blackout News, the reasons for this dramatic increase are multifaceted and reinforce each other. No.1 are the painfully high energy costs and rising raw material prices. Green energy has made energy among the most expensive in the world.
The economic woes has led to low domestic demand which particularly affects retail and service providers.
Crippling bureaucracy and slow approval procedures are also to blame as they hinder urgently needed investments.
Future looks bleak
Experts expect around 24,500 corporate failures for the entire year 2025, the highest value since 2015.
A rapid recovery is nowhere in sight. Allianz Trade has dampened expectations and forecasts a possible improvement starting only in 2027 at the earliest, contingent on state stimuli and geopolitical stabilization.
Without fundamental changes—such as investments in location attractiveness, a more stable energy supply, and tax simplification—the German economy faces a permanent loss of substance. The current development is an urgent wake-up call for politicians and businesses alike.
Germany serves as an example of how not to manage energy supply and economics in a country.
The article summarizes the study by Frans J. Schrijver titled “Historical CO2 Levels in periods of global Greening” which NTZ’s author Kenneth Richard posted here.
The Report24 article questions the traditional measurements of CO2 values from ice cores, which suggest levels of about 280 ppm (parts per million) for the early Holocene (10,000 years ago).
The recent study by Schrijver argues that the Earth was significantly greener 10,000 years ago, with a forest area over 50 percent higher than today. To enable such growth, CO2 levels at least equivalent to today’s level of approximately 420 ppm would have been necessary. This is justified using the Mitscherlich Law, which describes the relationship between CO2 fertilization and plant growth.
It is claimed that the Earth itself has quadrupled its natural CO2 emissions since 1750 (from 166 to 210 gigatonnes of carbon per year). In comparison, the human contribution is said to be tiny, increasing from 0 to 11 gigatonnes.
The article concludes that the idea of low historical CO2 levels and a dramatic, human-caused increase is untenable. The Earth was already green in early times and CO2 levels were high, with practically no human influence.
It is widely acknowledged that the enhanced CO2 fertilization effect due to the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is the predominant driver of the dramatic increases in global greening, or “gross primary production” (GPP). Global greening attribution estimates for CO2 fertilization range from 70% (Zhu et al., 2016) to 86% (Haverd et al., 2020).
As noted in a new study, Earth is thought to have been much greener than today during the Early Holocene (10,000 years ago), with over 50% more forest cover.
Since an increase in the CO2 concentration is recognized as the most dominant factor in greening, it would not be consistent with what we know about the requisite physics of GPP (CO2 residence time, water and nutrient availability, the diminishing returns effect of CO2 fertilization) to assume the lower levels of CO2 (under 300 ppm) suggested by Antarctic ice core records are accurate reflections of the actual CO2 levels from 10,000 years ago.
To achieve the high levels of Early Holocene greenness, CO2 levels needed to be as high or higher than today’s 420 ppm at that time too. The Earth could not have been as green as it was back then with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of only 280 ppm or less.
“Employing Mitscherlich’s Law, the research models the global GPP response to increasing CO₂, based on the mean value of eight different long-term GPP datasets. It illustrates a diminishing return of vegetation associated with rising CO₂, as additional factors such as nutrient and water availability impose constraints on the fertilization effect. Due to this diminishing return the average residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases significantly with higher GPP values. High CO₂ levels, similar to today’s, were therefore necessary for comparable GPP during green periods like 10,000 years ago. A CO₂ concentration of 280 ppm would only be possible if nature’s response to CO₂ were fundamentally different from what we observe today, with other constraining factors exceptionally more favorable.”
Interestingly, a chart from the paper uses the IPCC’s carbon cycle estimations to asses nature’s CO2 emission rates have risen 4 times more (+44 GtC/year net, or from +166 GtC/year in 1750 to +210 GtC/year in 2022) than human emissions rates have (from 0 GtC/year in 1750 to +11 GtC/year today). Since Earth’s natural sinks don’t distinguish between natural vs. human CO2 emissions, the bulk of the modern increase in CO2 can be said to have been derived from rising natural CO2 emissions, not human activity.
The global temperature did not change in October compared to August. The cooling trend remains intact. The American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) foresees a cool LA NINA developing in the Pacific this winter, which will lead to a further decline in global temperatures as well.
Belém – All that fuss for nothing
The 30th World Climate Conference in Belém is not yet over, but it is already becoming apparent that the event, announced as the “Conference of Truth,” will go down in the history of climate conferences as a turning point.
No head of state from the four largest CO2-emitting nations—China (33%), the USA (12%), India (8%), and Russia (5%)—is showing up in Belém.
Even before the conference, the New York Times headlined: “The whole world is fed up with climate policy.” And the fact that Bill Gates, one of the biggest supporters and sponsors of climate policy, explicitly warned against excessive, shortsighted climate policy just 14 days before the conference, and put prosperity back in focus — a major blow.
Glenn Beck, a prominent American television host, explains the change of heart by Bill Gates: “It’s not about science, it’s about Trump.” Expressed differently: it’s not about conviction; it’s about damage control for his own company, which is planning multibillion-dollar investments in data centers in the USA and globally. And given the situation, these will have to rely on electricity from new gas-fired power plants in the short term, as the reactivation of old nuclear power plants will not suffice, and the construction of new nuclear power plants will still take several years in the USA.
Only 1/3 of the states actually submit a plan
For the Climate Conference in Belém, states had to report on their future plans for the use of coal, oil, and gas. The fact that only one-third even submitted a statement already hints at the dissolving importance of the climate issue in most nations around the world. But the reports that were submitted are revealing. Most states reported continuously increasing use of coal, oil, and gas. The reports show an increase in global coal usage by 30%, oil by 25%, and gas by 40% by 2030 compared to 2015. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hoped to reduce global CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2015; now they are continuing to rise.
Only Europe onboard
Only Europe remains unshakably committed to the goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, is even more ambitious and, according to Axel Bojanowski, is “the ‘leader’ among industrialized countries: It aims to be climate-neutral by 2045 – a self-destructive plan: Germany’s reduction will inevitably be compensated by rising emissions in other EU countries. This is because the European Emissions Trading System ensures that emission allowances not used in Germany are consumed in other EU countries.
It is becoming increasingly clear what the Wall Street Journal meant when it called Germany’s energy policy the ‘dumbest in the world.’
A few days before the conference, the European states agreed on a common goal, namely to achieve a 90% CO2 reduction by 2040 compared to 1990. 5% of the self-commitment could come from emission reductions abroad, which, of course, must also be expensively paid for. The German Minister for the Environment celebrated this agreement as “good news for the German economy, as everyone would now have the same competitive conditions.”
This statement reveals how little the German federal government and its ministers understand about the global economy. As if German industry only exports goods to European countries. German goods, however, compete in a global market that does not have the burdens of CO2 taxes and high energy prices on German products and can therefore always offer them more cheaply. 50% of exports go to countries outside the EU.
Chancellor Merz and his Environment Minister Schneider are blatantly downplaying the German situation. Germany has set self-imposed shackles with the Climate Protection Act that will become highly painful in the coming years.
German climate policy: “script for an economic catastrophe”
Welt journalist Axel Bojanowski: “The German Climate Protection Act, cemented by the Federal Constitutional Court, seems to be a script for an economic catastrophe. It only allows Germany a remaining budget of 6.7 gigatonnes of CO2, which is likely to be used up by the early 2030s. According to the law, penalties, shutdowns, and restrictions on freedom are then threatened to meet the climate goals.”
6.7 gigatonnes was the remaining permissible budget after the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2020 onwards. As of today, only 3.6 gigatonnes of this remain. The buffer is reduced by about 0.5 gigatonnes each year. By 2032 at the latest, the remaining budget will be exhausted, and Germany will have reached the end of the line set by the Federal Constitutional Court. This will happen in the next legislative period, not just in 2040.
Chancellor Merz whitewashes
And in his 5-minute speech in Belém before a half-empty hall, Chancellor Merz spreads negligent whitewashing: “The economy is not the problem. Our economy is the key to protecting our climate even better.” Does the Chancellor not know the perilous state our industry is in?
Scandal surrounds tropical forest Ffund (TFF)
Probably the only outcome of the Belém conference will be the establishment of an investment fund, proposed by Brazilian President Lula, to finance the protection of tropical forests.
The fund works as follows: Donor countries pay $25 billion into the fund. Private investors (investment funds) are supposed to pay in $100 billion. The donor countries receive a return of about 4.0-4.8%, which corresponds to the return on their government bonds, as they generally have to raise the money through government debt. The return for private investors is 5.8% to 7.2%. The fund’s money is invested in emerging market government bonds, which yield comparatively high interest due to the higher risk (Brazilian government bonds are currently at 12.25%). Private investors are served first, followed by the donor countries. If anything remains after the distribution of profits to private investors and donor countries, the amount is paid out to 74 countries with tropical forests. It is hoped that this way, $3-4 billion will be distributed annually to the tropical forest countries.
The catch is this: To entice investors, private investors are given preference in the payment sequence: first the private ones, then the donor states. Furthermore, the donor countries must insure the fund against default. A default by an emerging market could quickly lead to the fund’s insolvency. In that case, the taxpayers of the donor countries would be held liable and, in an extreme scenario, lose their capital.
Disadvantageous for the German taxpayer
In preparation for Belém, there was fundamental disagreement over Germany’s participation in the fund between the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellor’s Office. The Chancellor’s Office clearly advocated for participation and a contribution of at least $1 billion. It was assisted by the Ministry for the Environment under Minister Schneider and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development under Minister Alabali-Radovan. The Ministry of Finance, under Lars Klingbeil, strongly objected, viewing the fund as a billion-dollar risk and doubting the viability of the fund’s structure.
And indeed, the model is structurally disadvantageous for the German taxpayer. One could also say: We are subsidizing the returns of private investors with public money and providing the default guarantee for BlackRock and Co. That is why the Federal Ministry of Finance is persistently blocking Germany’s participation in the fund. It can be unequivocally stated that the Federal Ministry of Finance has thus far bravely defended the interests of the German taxpayer against the interests of BlackRock and Co.
This is the background to Chancellor Merz being unable to name a figure (“a noteworthy amount”) in Belém. The billion € or $ is now supposed to be found in the budget reconciliation for the 2026 federal budget, which is taking place this week, so that the federal budget can be adopted on November 28. It is to be expected that the SPD will concede. But it could be a Pyrrhic victory for Chancellor Merz, who would then visibly be prioritizing the interests of international financial investors, especially if the fund were to run into difficulties.
Whether the fund will ultimately materialize is still questionable, as it only comes into effect if the donor states commit to $10 billion. So far (excluding Germany), $5.6 billion has been raised.
The USA and the UK have already declined.
If the fund comes into being, the investment companies will profit first, with high returns secured by states, and then the emerging markets, which can sell their high-risk government bonds. Whether the tropical forest will benefit in this confusing financial jungle is not yet certain. The biggest risk remains with the donor countries, who are putting their taxpayers’ money at risk with the catchy story of saving the rainforest.”
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
Recent Comments