touch every parts of the economy, the measures could have serious implications across the entire energy landscape from oil fields, to wind farms of the ripple effect could be felt worldwide. we'll discuss all of that, but i guess to just a moment. but 1st report from dmitri met that ankle on his 1st day in the office, donald trump made quite the entrance, issuing a flurry of orders, which include declaring a national energy emergency. we will drill baby drill. this will help issue permits the oil and gas produce as much quicker, ignoring ecological concerns. america will be a manufacturing nation once again. and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have the largest amount of oil and gas of any country owners. and we are going to use it we will bring prices down, feel our strategic reserves up again, right to the top,

and export american energy all over the world. drill baby drill to accomplish this. but as we all know, it takes higher prices to encourage wall street to invest to, to drill more wells. and to get to a $1.87, a gallon gasoline. that would mean the price of oil would have to be less than $50.00 a barrel. and in the permian basin across so the west texas oil patch, which produces about 4000000 barrels a day. the rates are being laid down at prices of $70.00 a barrel. and in the recent dallas federal reserve, pat analysis of the survey, more than half of the producers indicated that they would not be drilling new wells unless the price remained above $70.00 a barrel. so, you know, in the 1st instance, president trump's initiatives would appear to be mutually exclusive. going ahead,

we know that the terrorist that he proposes to, to put in place will increase the cost of drilling demand. this money has been useful in advancing the, the cost curves, and certainly china is the global leader in the production of solar panels. but a lot of that technology came from nasa here in houston and from the united states . it's a question of, of allocating the production, the implementation, one of the challenges that the president trump would have, and lowering the cost of electricity for americans as that it's never been cheaper . it's driven primarily by the price of natural gas across the united states. currently, that price is average less than $4.00 per m and b to you for the last several years . that's driven us electricity prices down the, the tremendous em roads that solar farms and wind farms have made across the united

states, especially in texas. a further will will push the price of electricity down the chinese and then we can't afford to lose the customers under the african growth and the opportunity act. countries on the continent could export goods to the united states. judy free, it takes just 14 days for the clothes made in west. i forget to reach american shores compared with the 9 months it takes for shipments from try it out. the senegalese workers here produced over a 1000000 garments all destined to the united states. there were sites just 2 weeks ago. there is the norm as potential here, but look at the factory floor. now. the owners are waiting to hear from trump's new administration's decision on existing trade deals. and so this chinese factory of africa holds by thread. trump says, current trade agreements are unfair to american businesses, putting their future in doubts in february. he's due to visit the continent for the

1st time when he attends the g. 20 summit in south africa with this date 20 presidency. i suppose trump will be looking more at quick wins for american businesses for american financial institutions, who would really be looking towards building partnerships that will be bringing about stability, which is the biggest thing that has rocking a lot of african countries. trump's return to power comes as west african nations severed ties with the us for russia. and us support for israel, strange african relations further. and mid this uncertainty, star searches for new buyers, shifting tree potential away from the united states and into the hands of its rivals. nicholas hawk. l. just the right time. yeah, jo, senegal, i am still accelerate climate action among financial institutions. the un, but net 0 banking alliance is a voluntary network of global banks. committed to a line lending and investment portfolios with net 0 emissions by 2050. but critics,

including the us republican politicians, say that the industry group was effectively coordinating a boy cost of investment in the oil and gas industry. big banks and asset managers on quitting the climate change network ends at be a loss rate for of canada's biggest lenders said that they were withdrawing from it too. that's up to 6 of the us as largest banks, quit the group, including jp morgan, goldman sachs, and morgan stanley, european bank. so threatened to pull out of the group as well, unless it's softens its rules. the u. s. federal reserve has said that it will quit another group, the network for breeding the financial system because it says its work has broken beyond the central banks mandate from congress. top court has a cd electra and sustainability at yale university. he works at the intersection of sustainability under the best of value when he joins us now from new haven, connecticut. good to have you with the start. does this mean the lenders going soft

on a lining the portfolios with climate change goals? and it's actually unclear what the banks are going to do behind the scenes of these announcements that could be that they are going soft that they'll use as an excuse to allow more climate risk and comment and emissions into their portfolios. or they might just leave the, the, the net 0 bank alliance is a method to allow them to diversify their portfolio. keep fossil fuel companies in the and, and, and let these kind of climate risks klein within there's portfolios. all right, so the banks still recognize the risk of climate change policies to the lending portfolios. yeah, i think it's clear that the, at this point says, lenders, banks, any financial institution understands the risks of climate adaptation to their portfolio, whether that's severe weather or drought disruptions to business,

etc. the challenge is that in the short term, and then the proximal effect of having fossil fuel companies have a high emissions in your portfolio, will have the strong returns. but in the long term, those climate impacts are going to be negative, but they'll be distributed. and that's future cash flow, which means this discounted. so we're waiting as a bank or lender, those short term immediate benefits against potentially catastrophic long term negative impacts. so what's this really all about that? how do we explain why banks and lenders leaving the the ends at the b a and other climate climate focus groups? it, is this purely political? actually, i don't think it's not. it's very political at all. i think this is just down to a financial or a fiduciary decision. there's pressure from shareholders to show short term returns and excluding high emission companies from your lending portfolio can reduce your

returns in the short term. the, the politics i think are in that boat of sales, the banks understand those risks and they're going to integrate climate risk as effectively as they can. but these announcements, these, the, the, the, the, the lack of commitment to these, to the net 0 bank. the alliance, for example, really reflects, i think, a financial decision by banks to focus on short term returns to the shareholders. and the you can avoid the politics by just avoiding the terminology that are okay. and the hot button top terms that politicians care about what you're saying that the banks will continue to walk the wolf and not talk the talk about it. isn't that incredibly short sights of the i hope they continue to walk the walk. it's possible that this is just the harbinger of, you know, giving up on climate emissions entirely and, and allowing that risk into the portfolio. but my sense is that the vast majority

of climate risk is understood by bank so that they'll keep an eye on that in the portfolio. and so what we'll see is that se, then not an investment or securities, but a means of showing support for the power company. so what all being coined as well, they started off as the prices up. so, um, you know, a mix influence, peddling a lot easier so there's, you know, conflicts of interest along multiple lines here. okay. and as well regularly for a framework in place to, to, to, to, to, to sort this out to, to, to bring it to light. oh, well, i mean, what i think there is the 1st, you know, there's one question which is, is there a regulatory framework? i would suggest, you know, yes there is. but then the next question is, well, will that be in force? will it be applied to pure, you know, money graph from, from the trunk organizations? because and in that case they asked me said, credit cards in general have arisen since the election in november. is there

a danger of an asset bubble here? if it busts who stands to lose most well in, you know, anytime you have an asset bubble that burst, the people who, who lose the most of the people who got in uh, you know, right before birth, right. and the people who tend to get in, you know, at that last 2nd, last minute tend to be the least sophisticated the lease and form and always able financially to absorb these losses. so that is something that really does concern me here because a lot of folks are, are remain skeptical of crypto currency. i think you'd be charged to the average person the . ringback the

shake model was for translation and international understanding is inviting nominations for its 11th edition, starting january the 1st and ending march the 31st 2025. for more information. please visit the awards official website at w w, w dot h t, a dot q a.