The "super derecho" storm that pounded the Washington DC area on Friday night with hurricane-force winds is being called unprecedented. But the truth is that there are other events that could happen that would be far more damaging to our power grid. For example, a substantial EMP burst over a major US city would fry virtually all of the electronics in the city and take the power grid in the area down indefinitely.

A gigantic EMP burst over the entire country (caused by a massive solar storm or a very large nuclear explosion high in the atmosphere) could theoretically take down the entire national power grid. Hopefully this latest storm has reminded Americans about how vulnerable our power grid really is and about how close we really are to being knocked back to the late 1800s.

Soyabean prices have surged to the highest level since the 2007-08 food crisis and the price of this year’s corn crop has risen 30 per cent since mid-June. Worries about the size of the US crop come only months after drought hit the Latin American soyabean belt of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Top US farming states such as Illinois and Indiana had suffered temperatures above 38ºC (100ºF) for several days already, with no let-up this week.

“The forecast is going to remain pretty much the same over the next week. We’re not looking at much of a break in the heat,” said Matt Barnes, meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s central Illinois office. “We aren’t seeing widespread failure yet, but it sure is developing rapidly,” said Brian Fuchs, climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Centre.

The warmth that enabled farmers to plant seeds quickly has since escalated into damaging extreme heat. “The combination of low subsoil moisture, which is a reflection of the lack of precipitation that we had during the winter, together with the very hot weather that we’re seeing right now could spell a pretty disastrous scenario for corn and soyabeans,” said Hussein Allidina, head of commodities research at Morgan Stanley.

The outcome is critical to global food prices and the agribusiness industry because the US supplies almost half of global corn exports and a third of soyabean exports. Demand for both has risen as consumers in emerging countries eat more meat. The heatwave threatens to undermine forecasts of record output after the most widespread US corn plantings in 75 years.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June. And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years.

But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now. So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the US were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

The 100-degree heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires.

While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot US summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He's a global warming skeptic who says, "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature."

Two decades ago, when the European currency system was last on the brink of collapse, the ultimate question was how much Germany, the continent's economic powerhouse, would do to save it. The peripheral economies were hurting, weighed down by a monetary policy that was appropriate for Germany but too austere for weaker European countries. Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, had to make a choice. It could continue to set high interest rates, thus upholding its commitment to stable prices. Or it could cut rates and accept modest inflation - and so save the rest of Europe from a prolonged recession.

We know which option Germany chose then. The Bundesbank brushed off suggestions that it should risk inflation for the sake of European solidarity; speculators correctly concluded that this made a common monetary policy intolerable for the weaker economies of Europe; and in September 1992, the continent's Exchange Rate Mechanism, a precursor of today's euro, shattered under the pressure of attacks from hedge funds. Almost 20 years later, the world is waiting for a new answer to the same question. How far will Germany go to keep Europe together?

The economist Rudiger Dornbusch observed that in economics, crises take longer to come to a head than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.

By the time you read this, the eurozone may have splintered. But whether or not that has happened, or soon will, one thing is certain. Since the beginning of the crisis, Germany has had the power to save the monetary union if it wanted to. The union's disintegration would be an optional catastrophe.

It was during a weekly economic briefing at the bank in early 2008 that I first heard the phrase. A sterling swaps trader told the assembled economists and managers that "Libor was dislocated with itself". It sounded so nonsensical that, at first, it just confused everyone, and provoked a little laughter. Before long, though, I was drawing up presentations to explain the "dislocation of Libor from itself" for corporate relationship managers. I was deciphering the subject in emails, internally and externally. And I was using the phrase myself openly with customers of the bank.

What I was explaining was that the bank was manipulating Libor. Only I didn't see it like that at the time. What the trader told us was that the bank could not be seen to be borrowing at high rates, so we were putting in low Libor submissions, the same as everyone. How could we do that? Easy. The British Bankers' Association, which compiled Libor, asked for a rate submission but there were no checks. The trader said there was a general acceptance that you lowered the price a few basis points each day.

According to the trader, "everyone knew" and "everyone was doing it". There was no implication of illegality. After all, there were 20 to 30 people in the room – from management to economists, structuring teams to salespeople – and more on the teleconference dial-in from across the country.

Looking back, I now feel ashamed by my naivety. Had I realised what was going on, I would have blown the whistle. But the openness alone suggested no collusion or secrecy. Management had been in the meeting, and so many areas of the Treasury division of the bank represented, that this was clearly no surprise or secret. Libor had dislocated with itself for a very good reason – TO HIDE THE TRUE ISSUES WITHIN THE BANK.

The interest rate rigging scandal that has engulfed Barclays was the result of a coordinated attempt at collusion by traders working for a coterie of leading banks over at least five years, according to a series of lawsuits and legal rulings filed in courts in Asia and North America.

The lawsuits allege the fraud was extensive, spanning at least three continents and involving trades worth tens of billions of pounds. The allegations raise further serious questions about the banks' ability to police themselves and the role of senior management in monitoring the activities of their employees.

In a 28-page statement of facts relating to last week's revelation that Barclays had been fined a total of £290 million, the US Department of Justice discloses how a network of traders working on both sides of the Atlantic conspired to influence both the Libor and Euribor interest rates – the rates at which banks lend to each other. It was, in effect, a worldwide conspiracy against the free functioning of the market.

The size of the fines was significant and the opprobrium heaped on Barclays unremitting. "This is the most damaging scam I can recall," said Andrew Tyrie, chair of parliament's Treasury select committee. "It appears that many banks were involved and Barclays were the first to own up."

Even business leaders turned on the City and demanded a cull at the top of British banks, with some investors at Barclays agitating for a management change after its £290 million fine for trying to fix Libor, the rate banks charge to borrow from each other.

The Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, launched a scathing attack on the banking industry and demanded a "real change in culture".

Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays, could be called before Parliament as early as Wednesday to answer questions about when he first became aware of the practice. The bank's chairman, Marcus Agius, will probably also be called to appear "if he is still in a job," sources on the Treasury Select Committee said.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for a judge-led inquiry into the industry, asserting that the problem "goes far beyond individuals". But he also singled out Mr Diamond, adding to the pressure on him to resign: "I think it's pretty clear that change is required at Barclays. It's very hard to see that being led by Bob Diamond."