When the Financial World Dropped the Climate
Six years ago, it sounded like a new beginning. Major financial institutions promised to redirect trillions, cut emissions, and take responsibility. Larry Fink stepped forward and declared that capital markets had to reinvent themselves. Climate became a buzzword, ESG a seal of approval, Davos a stage for moral self-affirmation. Hardly any institution wanted to be left out. Everyone was in, everyone wanted to look good. But the enthusiasm did not last long. Today, many of those pledges have quietly disappeared. Alliances fell apart, funds lost billions, boards changed the subject. In earnings calls, the word climate barely came up anymore. While investments in clean energy continued, banks simultaneously turned the big wheel back toward coal, oil, and gas.
The retreat had reasons. Conservative politicians, fossil fuel lobby groups, and right-wing think tanks applied pressure. It was not about substance, but about power. Lawsuits, legislation, capital withdrawals. Anyone who spoke too loudly about climate risked trouble. And trouble is unpopular on Wall Street. So conviction turned into caution, promises into silence. ESG revealed itself as a trend, not a transformation. Many institutions had signed on without intending to change anything. As long as it promised returns, climate was welcome. When headwinds came, the will was missing. After Trump’s return to the White House, the retreat was complete. Net-zero alliances dissolved, letters to investors were rewritten, climate protection replaced by energy pragmatism.
What remains is the impression of an industry that likes to speak in lofty moral terms as long as it is comfortable. When it became uncomfortable, it turned back the same way it had come. The march up the hill was short. The way back down was remarkably fast.
Denmark Secures Greenland
On Monday, Denmark deployed several hundred soldiers to Greenland. Officially, it is the Arctic exercise Arctic Endurance, a maneuver under extreme conditions. But the timing is politically charged. The troop movement comes amid growing tensions surrounding the island and its strategic significance. While Copenhagen is emphasizing presence, Washington remains conspicuously evasive. Speaking to NBC News today, Donald Trump would not say whether he ruled out the use of military force to take over Greenland. Two words, no comment, nothing more. This silence weighs heavier than any threat. In Denmark, it is understood as a signal that security measures are necessary, not reassurance. Greenland thus moves further into the center of geopolitical anxiety. What begins as an exercise increasingly reads like precaution. The line between training and a show of power blurs. And it is precisely this ambiguity that makes the situation so volatile.
Submarine Without Movement
Since the attack in December, nothing has moved in the port of Novorossiysk. A Russian submarine, struck by Ukrainian underwater drones, still lies in exactly the same position. Satellite images from late December and mid-January show no sign of relocation, no departure, no change in position. Visible instead are repairs to the pier. The quay was damaged, and apparently the vessel as well. Nevertheless, shortly after the attack, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed everything was operating normally and that there had been no damage. Video footage was shown that deliberately leaves out critical areas. The lower hull remains invisible.
Ukrainian statements speak of severe damage and the disabling of the submarine. It is said to be a Kilo-class boat, equipped with cruise missiles for attacks on Ukrainian cities. The fact that it has not moved for weeks speaks more clearly than any press release.
When Even Farage Starts to Waver
“Donald Trump’s confrontational course toward Europe’s allies is proving politically devastating for far-right parties in Europe, which are increasingly trying to distance themselves from an ever more unpopular U.S. president.”
The man who benefited for years from his closeness to Donald Trump is suddenly wavering. In an interview, Nigel Farage says Trump’s reckless war against Europe’s allies is a politically devastating blow for the continent’s far-right parties. Parties that once proudly posed with MAGA caps are now hastily trying to create distance. The U.S. president is becoming increasingly unpopular, Farage says, and that unpopularity rubs off. This is more than a marginal remark. Farage was a founding figure of the UK Independence Party, later the face of the Brexit Party, today a lawmaker, commentator, and radio host. For a long time, he was seen as a link between the American right and Europe’s right-wing populists. Trump was not a risk for him, but a tailwind.
Now that calculation is collapsing. Anyone who clings to Trump for too long ends up politically isolated. Anyone who detaches too late comes under pressure to justify themselves. That Farage of all people is saying this openly shows how much the balance of power has shifted. Loyalty to the American right no longer brings applause in Europe, but problems. And even its loudest advocates are beginning to grow nervous. And so one might say: every bad thing also has something good about it.
Oversight by Appointment
Anyone who wants to inspect detention facilities will have to bring patience in the future. The Department of Homeland Security is requiring members of Congress to give one week’s notice before entering immigration facilities. This rule remains in force for now. Not because it has been reviewed and approved, but because the court believes the path chosen to challenge it was the wrong one. The decision was made by Jia Cobb at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She explicitly made clear that her ruling says nothing about the legality of the new requirement. The dispute, she said, was simply brought on the wrong legal track.
The case was triggered by lawmakers from Minnesota who, shortly after the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Good, were denied access to an ICE facility. One day after her death, the Department of Homeland Security internally implemented a new seven-day notice requirement. This rule only became public when lawmakers were turned away. The court views this as a new agency decision that does not automatically fall under previous prohibitions. This leaves the central question unresolved. May the government time parliamentary oversight even though a federal statute provides for free access for oversight purposes.
In parallel, another lawsuit is underway in which numerous lawmakers accuse the government of deliberately obstructing oversight. The stakes are rising because negotiations over future agency funding are happening at the same time. Those who may inspect conditions only after prior notice might not see what is supposed to be reviewed.
Oil of Yesterday, Batteries of Tomorrow
Donald Trump continues to bet on oil, as if the future could be held in place with drilling rigs. While he openly talks about securing resources abroad, China is quietly but resolutely advancing a different calculation. Under Xi Jinping, electricity is becoming a substitute for gasoline, batteries a strategic asset. Chinese households have long understood this. More than half of newly sold cars there are already electric or partially electric, and oil consumption is approaching its peak. Manufacturers like BYD and Xiaomi are setting standards, not only in the market, but also on racetracks. The electricity comes from a mix China has massively expanded, from coal to nuclear power to wind and solar. No other country generates more electrical energy today. Entire industries are being rethought, from buses to lawn mowers. In Shenzhen, electronics, motors, and software merge into products that find buyers worldwide.
The United States is falling behind. While China builds factories, Washington argues over wind turbines and tariffs. Those who continue to rely on oil risk losing their footing. The world of the coming decades will not be dominated by raw materials, but by the battery.
Armed, Costumed, Serious
Armed gun rights activists demonstrated on Monday in front of the Virginia Capitol to protest planned tightening measures under the new Democratic governor Abigail Spanberger. Among them was a militia calling itself the Virginia Kekoas, appearing publicly for the first time since 2023 in the so-called Boogaloo style, tropical shirts, insignia, long guns. The leader, who calls himself ICE and explicitly does not mean the agency of the same name, spoke of rights for all, at all times, and of a return to one’s roots. Another participant, known as Sasquatch, said this year everything was more serious, calling it their unofficial rallying cry. To be safe, he added that he was not a swinger and that the pineapple on his shirt meant nothing. Between political protest, self-staging, and armed presence, the boundaries blur. What begins as a rally looks like a rehearsal for escalation. And that is precisely what makes these images so disturbing.
Reconstruction by Market Logic
In the midst of talks about ending the war, an actor is moving into the foreground who usually operates behind the scenes. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is to play a central role in the reconstruction of Ukraine. In New York, Ukrainian representatives met with top executives of the firm to outline a strategy for reconstruction, which Volodymyr Zelenskyy has put at around 800 billion dollars. The framework comes from talks between Kyiv and Washington, with details to follow in Davos. In Europe and in Ukraine, doubt is growing. BlackRock has already once tried to mobilize billions for reconstruction, but failed. Internal plans were repeatedly revised downward, the project temporarily frozen. The concern is old and remains current. Public funds could end up in a privately managed American fund, while Europe is expected to bear the bulk of the costs.
Officially, BlackRock is acting in an advisory role and without compensation. Whether that will remain the case is unclear. Proximity to the Trump administration is deepening mistrust. Donald Trump has long been pushing for access to resources and markets. His negotiators are businesspeople, not diplomats. In this environment, reconstruction looks less like a humanitarian project than like an investment catalog. Comparisons to the Marshall Plan come to mind, but they fall short. Back then, the state led. Today, a corporation stands ready, one that maximizes returns. Transparency and oversight become open questions. The idea of channeling frozen Russian assets into a U.S.-led fund is also meeting resistance in Europe. In Kyiv, the impression is growing that the massive figures are primarily political. Many expect that a significant portion would have to come from public funds, for education, infrastructure, and social stability. Whether enough money can be mobilized for that is unclear. Reconstruction thus becomes a test. Not only for Ukraine’s future, but for the question of who will be allowed to shape it.
Who Really Pays the Tariffs
New analyses dismantle an old claim. Researchers examined trade flows worth four trillion dollars and arrive at a clear conclusion. Foreign exporters bore just four percent of the increased tariffs last year. The rest was paid by consumers and importers in the United States. Almost entirely. What sounds like a dry statistic hits everyday life directly. Prices rise not because other countries pay, but because the bills arrive here. Economists have long known this. Now it is there in black and white. Tariffs are not a punishment for foreign countries, but a burden at home.
Nevertheless, Trump continues to claim otherwise. The president says America is not taking anything lying down and that others are being made to pay. The data say the opposite. They show who really pays and who supplies the story. It is the same story as so often. Big words, false promises, expensive consequences.
