Today's Wisdom - Banking, Carbon Credits and Brexit

Welcome back to A Little Wiser. We hope everyone had a lovely weekend, we have some great lessons ahead this week so stay tuned. Today’s wisdom explores:

Grab your coffee and let’s dive in.

If a country’s economy is an engine, the Central Bank is the mechanic with its hand constantly on the throttle. Most people know them as the institutions that print money, but their real power lies in their role as the "Lender of Last Resort." Whether it is the Federal Reserve in the US, the ECB in Europe, or the Bank of England, these entities exist to ensure that when the private banking system freezes up in a crisis, there is a backstop to prevent a total collapse. They operate in a strange gray area of power, independent enough from the government to avoid short-term political meddling, yet powerful enough to dictate the cost of everything from your mortgage to a loaf of bread.

The primary tool in their kit is the Interest Rate. By raising or lowering the "Base Rate," the Central Bank controls the price of borrowing money. When the economy is sluggish, they lower rates to encourage businesses to expand and consumers to spend. When the economy "overheats" and inflation begins to devalue the currency, they hike rates to intentionally slow things down. It is a delicate balancing act known as the "Dual Mandate": keeping prices stable while ensuring maximum employment. If they raise rates too fast, they trigger a recession; if they wait too long, they risk a hyper-inflationary spiral.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, Central Banks have turned to a more controversial "super-weapon" called Quantitative Easing (QE). When lowering interest rates to zero wasn't enough to jumpstart the economy, banks began "creating" digital money to buy up trillions of dollars in government bonds. This injected massive amounts of liquidity directly into the financial system. While QE prevented a second Great Depression, critics argue it fueled a massive "everything bubble" in stocks and real estate, widening the gap between those who own assets and those who don't. Today, the world’s central banks are engaged in the opposite, Quantitative Tightening, as they try to suck that excess cash back out of the system without causing the very market crash they worked so hard to prevent.

For most of industrial history, factories could pump carbon into the atmosphere without consequence, treating the sky like an unlimited dumping ground. That changed in 1997 with the Kyoto Protocol, which introduced a radical idea: cap the total amount of carbon that could be emitted, then let companies trade the right to pollute. The logic was elegant in theory, if you can't eliminate emissions overnight, at least make them expensive enough to incentivize change. By putting a price on carbon, the market would theoretically do what regulation alone couldn't: funnel capital toward cleaner alternatives while penalizing the dirtiest players.

In principle, governments or regulatory bodies set a "cap" on total allowable emissions for a sector or region, then issue permits representing one metric ton of CO₂ each. Companies that emit less than their allocation can sell their surplus credits; those that exceed must buy more or face penalties. In parallel, a voluntary market emerged where businesses could fund "offset" projects, like reforestation or renewable energy, and claim credits for the carbon supposedly avoided or removed. However, the system has been riddled with what critics call "carbon shell games." In 2023, investigations revealed that up to 90% of rainforest offset credits approved by Verra, the world's leading certifier, were essentially worthless as they were protecting forests that were never actually threatened. Airlines and tech companies had been buying these credits to claim carbon neutrality while their actual emissions continued to climb.

Today, the credibility crisis has sparked a reckoning. The European Union's carbon market, the world's largest, now trades at over €80 per ton, making it expensive enough to actually change corporate behavior. Meanwhile, a new generation of projects focused on "carbon removal" rather than avoidance is gaining traction. Companies like Climeworks are using giant fans to pull CO₂ directly from the air and inject it underground, creating credits that represent actual atmospheric reduction rather than theoretical prevention. Microsoft and Stripe have committed billions to purchasing only high-quality removal credits, essentially creating a premium tier that bypasses the junk market entirely. As we move deeper into the 2020s, the difference between a working carbon market and a performative one may determine whether we're buying time for a real energy transition or just buying indulgences for an overheating planet.

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom did the unthinkable: it voted to become the first sovereign nation to leave the European Union. To the outside world, it looked like a sudden explosion of populism, but the fuse had been burning since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973. For forty years, a wing of the Conservative Party and a growing segment of the public viewed Brussels as a bureaucratic "superstate" slowly eroding British sovereignty. The "Leave" campaign, led by the charismatic and controversial tandem of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, distilled this complex anxiety into three of the most effective words in British political history: "Take Back Control."

The aftermath of the vote triggered a four-year period of political paralysis that nearly broke the British parliamentary system. The UK found itself trapped in a "trilemma" involving the Irish border, the single market, and the desire for total regulatory independence. Because the 1998 Good Friday Agreement mandated an open border between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland (part of the EU), the UK couldn't simply walk away without a complex legal "divorce" settlement. This resulted in the Northern Ireland Protocol, a controversial arrangement that effectively drew a trade border down the Irish Sea, keeping Northern Ireland aligned with many EU rules while the rest of Great Britain moved in a different direction.

Today, the "Brexit Dividend" remains a subject of fierce debate. Economically, the UK has faced a "slow-puncture" effect; the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that Brexit reduced the UK’s potential GDP by roughly 4% compared to staying in the EU. While the UK successfully regained control over its fishing waters and signed independent trade deals with nations like Australia and New Zealand, the loss of friction-less access to its largest trading partner has hampered business investment. Brexit wasn't just a policy change; it was a fundamental identity shift. It forced the UK to redefine its role on the global stage, moving from a leading voice in Europe to a "Global Britain" seeking to balance its European geography with its historical Atlantic and Pacific ambitions.

We hope you enjoyed today’s edition! If you did, feel free to share it on social media or forward this email to friends!

Until next time... A Little Wiser Team