Chatter suddenly rising of inflation risk maps almost perfectly to this same juncture during the great recession. After the Fed showed it could put a floor under asset prices, the trumpets sounded. But, it didn't happen then, and isn't going to happen this time either. $SPY $TLT
The apex of inflation chatter will likely hit next year, when Green New Deal policies edge closer to reality. But it will just be Lucy and the Football all over again, because $GND (at least in energy-infrastructure terms) is ultimately deflationary, wringing out costs, waste.
Imagine looking back on us from the year 2120, and realizing "those people" seriously believed that investing in cheaper, faster, better, lower-cost infrastructure was both a bad investment, and...wait for it...inflationary. Can't make it up.
The observation here is of course quite correct, and part of a larger 40 year program of self-harm, in which the US has failed to invest in itself like other normal nations across the OECD. Let's stop the self-harm, and invest in ourselves.
The US has had shitty GDP, ultra-low fertility rates, and crap wage growth for 20 years. And a big factor in those trends is the massive underinvestment in the critical platforms for growth: water, transit, modern city planning. It's almost like we need a Marshall Plan.
This Spring I returned from a short trip to London--a place where I lived in the 1990's, that I criticised, that I snickered at. All has changed. Now it's London that is modern. Mega modern. Returning to the US is like going back in time by 30 years. It's the dumbest thing ever.
London is now an amusement park of smartly targeted public investment, a kaleidoscope of gorgeous rejuvenations, uncoverings. I could write a 5000 word love letter to this genius London Bridge station project that revived a district, fits into the Shard. architecture.com/awards-and-com…
Boston, DC transit systems need to be rebuilt. Intermodal investments are needed in many places East of the Mississippi. Whole train network needs to be modernized. You could literally just print the money, and you'd get a + return on investment, all paid back with GDP growth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now that global oil demand growth is over, and we enter a plateau-of-consumption period of at least several years where demand oscillates (but does not fall, yet), trading price is imo going to be far more difficult than ever. Here are some themes: 1/
Price is going to stay firmer than one would expect: The end of demand growth has long been anticipated by the industry, which has been rapidly converting to a strategy of capital discipline. So, ex-NOCs, the pressure in to conform to supply constraint is in place.
Within NOCs and OPEC however, we are going to see more constant brinksmanship, cheating, and the herding of cats problem. The opposite dynamic. You are already seeing this wrt Putin. His geo-pol blunder has now converted to a cash flow problem. 3/
So IEA sees such a bright three year run through 2025 in global powergrid decarbonization, that it's forecasting renewables and nuclear take 90% of marginal growth, thus suppressing power sector emissions effectively. iea.org/reports/electr… 1/
And Euro group Rystad Energy is also coming to a similar conclusion, both within and outside the power sector two, and actually sees a peak in power sector emissions right here, right now. rystadenergy.com/news/fossil-fu… 2/
But I'm not seeing the same, encouraging outcome. Some context; I have been very extremely on board for years with the idea that wind and solar would eventually crowd out marginal growth in FF sources in the powergrid. A good portion of that prospect has indeed come true. 3/
For about 30 years now there's been a notion in western think tanks and financial market research that Non-OECD per capita oil consumption would inexorably move towards OECD per capita use. Directionally, this was right of course. They just got the magnitude all wrong.
OECD per capita oil consumption growth was a one-time, spectacular mash-up of multiple economic drivers, concurrent with the rollout of ICE vehicles. Transposing that to the Non-OECD, say, post 1990 was irresistible I guess. But it's not even useful. It's a big analytical miss.
Now obviously, oil per capita growth in the Non-OECD was going to move higher. And it is. The utility of oil is so rich that adopting small amounts would be transformative. Think: a 2 wheeler, and say 6-12 liters per month. This was the justifiably imposing reality staring down..
California put 237, 618 new EV on the road last year.
Conservatively speaking (i.e. being generous and cautious) that represents nearly 1 new TWh of electricity demand needed (0.95 TWh).
How much *newly created* electricity from wind+solar alone, in CA last year? --> 8.45 TWh.
The bitter complaint that we can't possibly run the cars on wind and solar will press onward as we create overwhelming surpluses of wind and solar, from which we will indeed power the cars. It's fun, and it's already happening.
China check-up: a country where ICE sales peaked five years ago, and where EV adoption is skyrocketing, is a country that needs to create gobs of new wind and solar. Wonder how they're coming along. :-)
The most common assumption I read currently in oil analysis is the view that production growth absolutely must come from somewhere soon, to serve demand growth that's coming next year. This assumption is often paired with the view that western oil producers are making.... 1/
...a kind of policy mistake in their cautious reluctance to return to growth-oriented drilling. I'm on the other side of both assumptions. Indeed, I think western oil companies see--and have seen for some time--a very serious risk that total global oil demand.... 2/
...will not grow much or at all, in the years ahead. Why the divergence? Why do politically minded people and oil and gas fund managers have such a different view than oil companies themselves? I could speculate. But suffice to say, the no-growth risk has been mounting... 3/
Let's play the superlative game: the biggest story in global climate is unfolding in real time right now in China's EV market which is absolutely off the hook. EV (NEV) sales are headed towards 3 million this year, as ICE sales get absolutely crushed. 1/
In my latest newsletter I showed that after ICE sales peaked at 28.1 million units in 2017, China's road fuel demand stopped growing. While we can't count on fuel demand to stay flat (on-road ICE fleet in China is mighty) ICE sales are on course to be < 22 million this year. 2/
Kinda fascinating is that China's data agencies have started reporting electricity demand from the emerging EV fleet. Counter to people's intuitions, it's not much. But it's not nothing. 3 million EV hitting the road in 2021 places roughly 10 TWh of new demand on the grid. 3/