Hercules Global Solutions
Hercules Global Solutions
Environmental Easing
The biggest obstacle to tackling climate change is financing. The 60 largest commercial and investment banks collectively financed $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel companies between 2016 and 2020, the five years after the Paris agreement was signed. In contrast only 7% of global banks’ energy financing went to renewables between 2016 and 2020. Just last year banks provided $673 billion to finance the fossil fuel industry. Trying to get banks to change their practices would take years or even decades, time that the planet simply does not have.
As a bit of background, Quantitative Easing by central banks is commonly referred to as “printing money.” Understandably there is scepticism of QE given historical examples of rampant inflation and economic collapse due to uncontrolled money printing. A more recent concept is Green QE, where the new money is used to fund companies with a green focus. Currently Green Bonds are loans issued in the market by a public or private organization to finance environmentally friendly activities. Globally, issuers sold $443 billion worth of green bonds in 2022. However, from a legal perspective, green bonds as they exist today are not really different from traditional bonds. To date, there are no regulations requiring the borrower to specify its “green” intentions in writing. Moreover, the promises made to investors are not always binding and green bonds are susceptible to greenwashing. For example, some natural gas projects receive a green label and some road construction projects are reported as climate aid.
Even if all these companies were truly green the pool of available green bonds is so limited it would easily be used up by Green QE. Environmental Easing creates and funds a targeted group of genuinely green companies and green initiatives commensurate with the scale of the problem of global warming. Every country on earth, no matter what stage of development can mitigate and adapt to global warming by letting Hercules do all the planning and implementation.
Every country would be allowed to carry out Environmental Easing of up to 6% of GDP per year until 2050 or beyond until net zero objectives are met (i.e 6% of their 2019 GDP, per year). However, there would be a cap limiting the maximum amount of Environmental Easing to $175 billion per year for any country. This would only apply to the US, China, Japan, and Germany whose GDPs are so large that 6% would exceed the $175 billion limit. This ensures that the largest economies do not use up scarce commodities and production capacity and crowd out smaller economies from addressing global warming adequately.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that $1.6 to $3.8 trillion is required annually to avoid warming exceeding 1.5 degrees C. GDP of the world in 2019 was about $87 trillion in total. Thus, the total allowable Environmental Easing for the world works out to about $4 trillion per year. This is in line with what climate experts say is necessary to keep 1.5 C within reach.
Out of the 152 developing countries in the world only about 20 of them, classified as emerging markets resorted to QE during the pandemic. This means that most of the countries are yet to experience any of the benefits of using QE.
Assuming emerging market and developing economies constituted roughly 50% of global GDP in nominal terms in 2019, Environmental Easing will raise about $2 trillion per year for developing countries (taking into account the $175 billion cap for China).
Since 1977, the Federal Reserve has operated under a mandate from Congress to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates” - what is now commonly referred to as the Fed’s “dual mandate.” The idea that the Fed should pursue multiple goals can be traced back to at least the 1940s. However, there has been shifting emphasis on which objective should take precedence. Thus, it is clearly within Congress’ authority to add a new mandate for the Fed given the urgency of the climate crisis. All Congress needs to do is allow the Fed and a new Climate Bank to conduct Environmental Easing to combat global warming.
Environmental Easing is the only way to mobilize the trillions of dollars each year that are vital to saving the planet. Note that initially, developed countries such as the US are likely to rule out Environmental Easing claiming it is outside their mandate. However, developing countries won’t have as many qualms, so they will be the focus of Hercules’ efforts for the first few years. If Hercules is successful in these countries, developed countries may get religion and also jump on board, significantly increasing the amount raised through Environmental Easing.
Note that even if central banks of developed countries choose not to participate in the belief Environmental Easing is outside their mandate, the plans drawn up by the experts at Hercules can be made available to the private sector of those countries so that at least some of the plans can be implemented using private financing.
This proposal would create approximately 200 new “Climate Banks” with one climate bank per country. The sole function of these banks is to fund green energy projects run by Hercules. Each climate bank would work in conjunction with the branch of Hercules located in that country.
Note that with Environmental Easing only money creation is carried out by central banks, spending that money is done by a new climate bank in each participating country. At the beginning of each year the central bank would create new money equivalent to 6% of 2019 GDP and transfer the money to the climate bank. The climate bank would then work in coordination with Hercules and its affiliates to spend the money throughout the year on the most scalable green solutions to address climate change. The separation of money creation and spending preserves the independence of central banks and lets them focus on managing inflation and employment. In conjunction with Hercules, climate banks would operate with full transparency. All details of technologies, companies, and amounts invested in every country would be freely available online. If the public or press finds any irregularity they can flag it for an audit. The separation of money creation and spending reduces the workload on the central bank to one day per year and avoids the possibility of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that normally plague central banks.
Climate banks can do the heavy lifting of climate finance through Environmental Easing. With this proposal each climate bank would be empowered to issue new climate friendly loans each year up to 6 percent of their respective country’s GDP (up to $175 billion per year per country). These loans would be for a period of 20 years with a fixed annual interest rate of 1 percent. However, in order to be eligible, the country’s average annual inflation rate over the past two years must be below 15 percent. Countries which have mismanaged their economies and caused hyperinflation are not eligible. Rather than fighting central banks and private banks to change their practices, climate banks would simply sidestep them. The governments of the respective countries simply need to authorize their central banks to conduct Environmental Easing and authorize the formation of climate banks.
Critics of Green QE like to point out that central banks would lose their credibility once their mandate shifted towards environmental policies which, in their opinion should be left to politicians. However, politicians are inherently short-term thinkers and the world cannot rely upon them to do the right thing.
Central banks have argued that they have to follow the principle of “market neutrality” and should therefore refrain from making discretionary choices when selecting bonds on the market.
However, central banks always make choices that are not neutral for financial markets when implementing monetary policy. Research has shown that the ECB’s corporate bond purchase program is skewed towards carbon-intensive firms. As several top-level ECB policymakers such as Isabel Schnable have pointed out, “In the presence of market failures, market neutrality may not be the appropriate benchmark for a central bank when the market by itself is not achieving efficient outcomes.”
Supporters of QE who argue Green QE is somehow discriminatory because central banks are picking winners and losers are disingenuous. Traditional QE is already picking winners and losers and the loser is the planet. What exactly makes mortgage-backed securities so virtuous? The Fed bought over $1.3 trillion of mortgage bonds since March 5, 2020 contributing to skyrocketing home prices.
Note that most of the Environmental Easing will be allowed to run off the balance sheet at maturity (at 20 years). This is referred to as ‘passive’ Quantitative Tightening (QT) because the proceeds are simply not reinvested so the balance sheet shrinks. Throughout the duration of Environmental Easing a limited amount of bonds would also be sold in the open market, allowing insurance companies and other large companies and institutions to take stakes in the companies leading the fight against global warming. This will also shrink the balance sheet and ensure that the companies Hercules helps create are held to the higher standards of the private sector and not just the result of government largesse. However massive amounts of premature QT, with the express purpose of dramatically reducing the balance sheet, would not be used since it could trigger a global recession.
Note that as long as countries are managing their inflation responsibly, those with a GDP below $10 billion would be allowed to monetize their debt up to the full amount of their Environmental Easing. The rationale is that they have not contributed significantly to historical carbon emissions and since they did not create the problem they are allowed to spend the money on adaptation as compensation for the harm caused to them.
Many people are understandably wary of any form of QE, let alone Green QE since it can enable fiscal irresponsibility. To address these concerns any country engaged in Environmental Easing would be prohibited from simultaneously using traditional QE. QE should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic or global financial crisis. To further promote fiscal responsibility countries would be grouped into tiers based on the level of inflation in their country. Countries with average annual inflation below 10 percent would be allowed to conduct Environmental Easing of up to 6 percent of GDP per year. However, countries with inflation between 10 and 15 percent can only do Environmental Easing of 3 percent of GDP per year. Any country with inflation above 15 percent would not be allowed to do any Environmental Easing. The average annual inflation for each country would be measured in 2 year time periods, with restrictions starting in the 3rd year. These conditions give countries a strong incentive to run their economies responsibly.
Environmental Easing may cause inflation in some commodities but it won’t cause systemic inflation. In fact, by lowering energy prices it will cause deflation in many sectors. Since Hercules will have detailed knowledge of future demand for commodities and other inputs based on its plans for decarbonizing the planet, it can strengthen the weakest links in the supply chain to avoid sudden price shocks. For example, if high demand for copper is anticipated Hercules would guide investment toward companies that produce copper, not just to green companies that are end users of the copper. Hercules can provide a coordinated global plan for decarbonization which currently does not exist.
To ensure that the massive amounts of funds raised through Environmental Easing aren’t misused, up to 1% of the funds raised will be allocated to supervision and auditing of recipient companies.
There are other features of Environmental Easing that ensure it is deployed uniformly and equitably across the world. Only a few key scalable technologies are allowed through Hercules (e.g. grid scale solar and HVDC transmission lines). Whereas Green QE is susceptible to greenwashing and wasteful spending Hercules imposes uniform technological and financial standards in every participating country, obviating the potential for corruption.
In the first year, the scientists and experts at Hercules would spend $5 million on each developing country analyzing its energy and environmental needs and draw up a road map on which projects and what forms of green energy are optimal for their country (i.e. wind, utility-scale solar, microgrids, long term energy storage, etc.) based on the latest technology. The roadmaps would be publicly available on the Hercules platform. Businesses interested in any of these or their own green projects can also find partners on the platform.
According to the UN there are 193 countries in the world of which 66 are considered developed countries. The other 127 are considered developing countries with varying levels of affluence.
Note that global GDP is growing each year (except in 2020 due to the pandemic). For example, global GDP in 2021 was over $94 trillion. The 6% limit for Environmental Easing would be based on 2019 GDPs otherwise the numbers get too large and recalculating the allowable Environmental Easing each year would be too complicated.
2019 is used as the base year because it shows pre-pandemic GDPs. Moreover, since the amount of easing is proportional to GDP (i.e. 6%) it is the fairest way to reward countries that have built up large economies.
Every participating country with a GDP over $10 billion needs to pay back the total amount of easing plus 1% interest per year within a 20 year time period (1% x 20 years = 20% and 1 billion x 1.2 = $1.2 billion). Countries that fail to do so would be prohibited from using Environmental Easing in the future. However, this isn’t an unrealistic condition. For example, suppose a developing country has an average annual inflation rate of 5%. This means that 1 billion in 2023 dollars is equal to 2.65 billion dollars in 2043 dollars (1.05^20 = 2.65). However, under the rules of Environmental Easing that country only needs to pay back 1.2 billion in 2043 dollars in order to destroy the money that was created through Environmental Easing. This shrinks the central bank’s balance sheet and largely inflates away the debt.
In a recent call to action, civil society groups said, “There is no alternative but to do whatever it takes to mitigate the systemic risks posed by biodiversity and ecosystem loss.” The current emissions trajectory could lead to 3°C of global heating. They argue that given how these intertwined crises affect price, financial and economic instability, pre-emptive action to mitigate these risks is firmly within the mandates of central bank and financial authority.
Environmental Easing
The biggest obstacle to tackling climate change is financing. The 60 largest commercial and investment banks collectively financed $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel companies between 2016 and 2020, the five years after the Paris agreement was signed. In contrast only 7% of global banks’ energy financing went to renewables between 2016 and 2020. Just last year banks provided $673 billion to finance the fossil fuel industry. Trying to get banks to change their practices would take years or even decades, time that the planet simply does not have.
As a bit of background, Quantitative Easing by central banks is commonly referred to as “printing money.” Understandably there is scepticism of QE given historical examples of rampant inflation and economic collapse due to uncontrolled money printing. A more recent concept is Green QE, where the new money is used to fund companies with a green focus. Currently Green Bonds are loans issued in the market by a public or private organization to finance environmentally friendly activities. Globally, issuers sold $443 billion worth of green bonds in 2022. However, from a legal perspective, green bonds as they exist today are not really different from traditional bonds. To date, there are no regulations requiring the borrower to specify its “green” intentions in writing. Moreover, the promises made to investors are not always binding and green bonds are susceptible to greenwashing. For example, some natural gas projects receive a green label and some road construction projects are reported as climate aid.
Even if all these companies were truly green the pool of available green bonds is so limited it would easily be used up by Green QE. Environmental Easing creates and funds a targeted group of genuinely green companies and green initiatives commensurate with the scale of the problem of global warming. Every country on earth, no matter what stage of development can mitigate and adapt to global warming by letting Hercules do all the planning and implementation.
Every country would be allowed to carry out Environmental Easing of up to 6% of GDP per year until 2050 or beyond until net zero objectives are met (i.e 6% of their 2019 GDP, per year). However, there would be a cap limiting the maximum amount of Environmental Easing to $175 billion per year for any country. This would only apply to the US, China, Japan, and Germany whose GDPs are so large that 6% would exceed the $175 billion limit. This ensures that the largest economies do not use up scarce commodities and production capacity and crowd out smaller economies from addressing global warming adequately.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that $1.6 to $3.8 trillion is required annually to avoid warming exceeding 1.5 degrees C. GDP of the world in 2019 was about $87 trillion in total. Thus, the total allowable Environmental Easing for the world works out to about $4 trillion per year. This is in line with what climate experts say is necessary to keep 1.5 C within reach.
Out of the 152 developing countries in the world only about 20 of them, classified as emerging markets resorted to QE during the pandemic. This means that most of the countries are yet to experience any of the benefits of using QE.
Assuming emerging market and developing economies constituted roughly 50% of global GDP in nominal terms in 2019, Environmental Easing will raise about $2 trillion per year for developing countries (taking into account the $175 billion cap for China).
Since 1977, the Federal Reserve has operated under a mandate from Congress to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates” - what is now commonly referred to as the Fed’s “dual mandate.” The idea that the Fed should pursue multiple goals can be traced back to at least the 1940s. However, there has been shifting emphasis on which objective should take precedence. Thus, it is clearly within Congress’ authority to add a new mandate for the Fed given the urgency of the climate crisis. All Congress needs to do is allow the Fed and a new Climate Bank to conduct Environmental Easing to combat global warming.
Environmental Easing is the only way to mobilize the trillions of dollars each year that are vital to saving the planet. Note that initially, developed countries such as the US are likely to rule out Environmental Easing claiming it is outside their mandate. However, developing countries won’t have as many qualms, so they will be the focus of Hercules’ efforts for the first few years. If Hercules is successful in these countries, developed countries may get religion and also jump on board, significantly increasing the amount raised through Environmental Easing.
Note that even if central banks of developed countries choose not to participate in the belief Environmental Easing is outside their mandate, the plans drawn up by the experts at Hercules can be made available to the private sector of those countries so that at least some of the plans can be implemented using private financing.
This proposal would create approximately 200 new “Climate Banks” with one climate bank per country. The sole function of these banks is to fund green energy projects run by Hercules. Each climate bank would work in conjunction with the branch of Hercules located in that country.
Note that with Environmental Easing only money creation is carried out by central banks, spending that money is done by a new climate bank in each participating country. At the beginning of each year the central bank would create new money equivalent to 6% of 2019 GDP and transfer the money to the climate bank. The climate bank would then work in coordination with Hercules and its affiliates to spend the money throughout the year on the most scalable green solutions to address climate change. The separation of money creation and spending preserves the independence of central banks and lets them focus on managing inflation and employment. In conjunction with Hercules, climate banks would operate with full transparency. All details of technologies, companies, and amounts invested in every country would be freely available online. If the public or press finds any irregularity they can flag it for an audit. The separation of money creation and spending reduces the workload on the central bank to one day per year and avoids the possibility of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that normally plague central banks.
Climate banks can do the heavy lifting of climate finance through Environmental Easing. With this proposal each climate bank would be empowered to issue new climate friendly loans each year up to 6 percent of their respective country’s GDP (up to $175 billion per year per country). These loans would be for a period of 20 years with a fixed annual interest rate of 1 percent. However, in order to be eligible, the country’s average annual inflation rate over the past two years must be below 15 percent. Countries which have mismanaged their economies and caused hyperinflation are not eligible. Rather than fighting central banks and private banks to change their practices, climate banks would simply sidestep them. The governments of the respective countries simply need to authorize their central banks to conduct Environmental Easing and authorize the formation of climate banks.
Critics of Green QE like to point out that central banks would lose their credibility once their mandate shifted towards environmental policies which, in their opinion should be left to politicians. However, politicians are inherently short-term thinkers and the world cannot rely upon them to do the right thing.
Central banks have argued that they have to follow the principle of “market neutrality” and should therefore refrain from making discretionary choices when selecting bonds on the market.
However, central banks always make choices that are not neutral for financial markets when implementing monetary policy. Research has shown that the ECB’s corporate bond purchase program is skewed towards carbon-intensive firms. As several top-level ECB policymakers such as Isabel Schnable have pointed out, “In the presence of market failures, market neutrality may not be the appropriate benchmark for a central bank when the market by itself is not achieving efficient outcomes.”
Supporters of QE who argue Green QE is somehow discriminatory because central banks are picking winners and losers are disingenuous. Traditional QE is already picking winners and losers and the loser is the planet. What exactly makes mortgage-backed securities so virtuous? The Fed bought over $1.3 trillion of mortgage bonds since March 5, 2020 contributing to skyrocketing home prices.
Note that most of the Environmental Easing will be allowed to run off the balance sheet at maturity (at 20 years). This is referred to as ‘passive’ Quantitative Tightening (QT) because the proceeds are simply not reinvested so the balance sheet shrinks. Throughout the duration of Environmental Easing a limited amount of bonds would also be sold in the open market, allowing insurance companies and other large companies and institutions to take stakes in the companies leading the fight against global warming. This will also shrink the balance sheet and ensure that the companies Hercules helps create are held to the higher standards of the private sector and not just the result of government largesse. However massive amounts of premature QT, with the express purpose of dramatically reducing the balance sheet, would not be used since it could trigger a global recession.
Note that as long as countries are managing their inflation responsibly, those with a GDP below $10 billion would be allowed to monetize their debt up to the full amount of their Environmental Easing. The rationale is that they have not contributed significantly to historical carbon emissions and since they did not create the problem they are allowed to spend the money on adaptation as compensation for the harm caused to them.
Many people are understandably wary of any form of QE, let alone Green QE since it can enable fiscal irresponsibility. To address these concerns any country engaged in Environmental Easing would be prohibited from simultaneously using traditional QE. QE should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic or global financial crisis. To further promote fiscal responsibility countries would be grouped into tiers based on the level of inflation in their country. Countries with average annual inflation below 10 percent would be allowed to conduct Environmental Easing of up to 6 percent of GDP per year. However, countries with inflation between 10 and 15 percent can only do Environmental Easing of 3 percent of GDP per year. Any country with inflation above 15 percent would not be allowed to do any Environmental Easing. The average annual inflation for each country would be measured in 2 year time periods, with restrictions starting in the 3rd year. These conditions give countries a strong incentive to run their economies responsibly.
Environmental Easing may cause inflation in some commodities but it won’t cause systemic inflation. In fact, by lowering energy prices it will cause deflation in many sectors. Since Hercules will have detailed knowledge of future demand for commodities and other inputs based on its plans for decarbonizing the planet, it can strengthen the weakest links in the supply chain to avoid sudden price shocks. For example, if high demand for copper is anticipated Hercules would guide investment toward companies that produce copper, not just to green companies that are end users of the copper. Hercules can provide a coordinated global plan for decarbonization which currently does not exist.
To ensure that the massive amounts of funds raised through Environmental Easing aren’t misused, up to 1% of the funds raised will be allocated to supervision and auditing of recipient companies.
There are other features of Environmental Easing that ensure it is deployed uniformly and equitably across the world. Only a few key scalable technologies are allowed through Hercules (e.g. grid scale solar and HVDC transmission lines). Whereas Green QE is susceptible to greenwashing and wasteful spending Hercules imposes uniform technological and financial standards in every participating country, obviating the potential for corruption.
In the first year, the scientists and experts at Hercules would spend $5 million on each developing country analyzing its energy and environmental needs and draw up a road map on which projects and what forms of green energy are optimal for their country (i.e. wind, utility-scale solar, microgrids, long term energy storage, etc.) based on the latest technology. The roadmaps would be publicly available on the Hercules platform. Businesses interested in any of these or their own green projects can also find partners on the platform.
According to the UN there are 193 countries in the world of which 66 are considered developed countries. The other 127 are considered developing countries with varying levels of affluence.
Note that global GDP is growing each year (except in 2020 due to the pandemic). For example, global GDP in 2021 was over $94 trillion. The 6% limit for Environmental Easing would be based on 2019 GDPs otherwise the numbers get too large and recalculating the allowable Environmental Easing each year would be too complicated.
2019 is used as the base year because it shows pre-pandemic GDPs. Moreover, since the amount of easing is proportional to GDP (i.e. 6%) it is the fairest way to reward countries that have built up large economies.
Every participating country with a GDP over $10 billion needs to pay back the total amount of easing plus 1% interest per year within a 20 year time period (1% x 20 years = 20% and 1 billion x 1.2 = $1.2 billion). Countries that fail to do so would be prohibited from using Environmental Easing in the future. However, this isn’t an unrealistic condition. For example, suppose a developing country has an average annual inflation rate of 5%. This means that 1 billion in 2023 dollars is equal to 2.65 billion dollars in 2043 dollars (1.05^20 = 2.65). However, under the rules of Environmental Easing that country only needs to pay back 1.2 billion in 2043 dollars in order to destroy the money that was created through Environmental Easing. This shrinks the central bank’s balance sheet and largely inflates away the debt.
In a recent call to action, civil society groups said, “There is no alternative but to do whatever it takes to mitigate the systemic risks posed by biodiversity and ecosystem loss.” The current emissions trajectory could lead to 3°C of global heating. They argue that given how these intertwined crises affect price, financial and economic instability, pre-emptive action to mitigate these risks is firmly within the mandates of central bank and financial authority.