Germany’s Failed Bid To Be the Global Climate Leader


Germany's Failed Bid To Be the Global Climate Leader

Of the world’s largest economies, none have tried harder to fight climate change than Germany. In 2011, former Chancellor Angela Merkel announced an unprecedented Energiewende (“energy transition”) plan to slash her country’s greenhouse gas emissions and usher in a new green economy. A decade later, electricity prices are skyrocketing while Germany is finalizing a new natural gas pipeline with Russia. With the news that Germany will miss its emissions reduction targets for 2022 and 2023, the Energiwende can officially be declared a self-imposed climate disaster. 

Turning the world’s fourth-largest economy—one that emerged from the ashes of World War II on the back of its coal, steel, and auto manufacturing industries—green required radical transformation. In a sense, Germany’s proposed 21st century economic transformation would require undoing its 20th century economic miracle. 

Germany was already reducing its greenhouse gas emissions before 2011, so it came as a surprise when Merkel announced that her government would “end the use of nuclear energy and reach the age of renewable energy as fast as possible.” The Energiewende’s goal of reducing emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 was ambitious, but it was the prospect of achieving this goal without nuclear energy that truly turned heads. By shuttering nuclear plants and scaling wind and solar, Merkel made a poor bet that a green economy could run on wind and sunshine alone. 

After a swath of decrees and guidelines, as well as tens of billions of euros in subsidies for, and investment in, renewable projects, Merkel boasted about creating hundreds of thousands of green-collar jobs. Many Germans embraced this vision for the future, taking pride in their nation’s turn toward an economy powered by nature. Yet it quickly became apparent that while the Energiewende plan offered vision, it lacked sound strategy. 

Bureaucracy slowed the construction of necessary infrastructure for storing and transporting new renewable forms of energy. And suddenly Dunkelflaute—a term used to describe periods of low energy production when the sun failed to shine or the wind didn’t blow—entered the German vernacular. By 2019, the Federal Court of Auditors declared that the 160 billion euros ($180 billion) spent over the last five years were “in extreme disproportion to the results.”

By the tenth anniversary of the Energiewende, the scope of the project’s failure became clear. The year before, German leaders had celebrated renewables reaching 46.2 percent of national electricity consumption due to favorable weather conditions and lower demand. But in 2021, this trend reversed. During the COVID economic bounce back, energy demand exploded while wind power production decreased by 25 percent—leaving coal and natural gas generation to fill in the gaps. 

German households have the highest electricity prices in the world, but many Germans are still committed to their utopian vision. Last fall, voters pushed out Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats in favor of a coalition led by the center-left Social Democrats. This wasn’t a refutation of the Energiewende though, since it appears that Chancellor Olaf Scholz will double down as he has expressed interest in being known as the “climate chancellor” and supports policies including an EU-wide carbon price.

The Energiewende has consequences beyond German borders too. The country can’t meet its energy needs with domestic wind, solar, and coal production. So Germans are eagerly awaiting the completion of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will deliver natural gas from Russia. It will pump fossil fuel into Germany while lining the pockets of Russian oligarchs with cash. Those excommunicated nuclear plants would have provided emissions-free energy without any reliance on Russia. 

Meanwhile in Brussels, Germany’s new Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck wants to force the Energiewende plan on the rest of Europe. He recently rejected the European Commission’s plan to label nuclear energy “green,” saying the move “waters down the good label for sustainability.” As long as Germany is miscategorized as the global climate leader, other nations will follow its mindless model. 

German technocrats’ hubris has produced a coal renaissance and a dangerous dependence on Russian natural gas. The rest of the world should not take advice from them.

The post Germany's Failed Bid To Be the Global Climate Leader appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/cZyYNFtvg
via IFTTT

Oil Entering “Political Intervention Territory” Goldman Warns; Could Force OPEC+ To Boost Output

Oil Entering “Political Intervention Territory” Goldman Warns; Could Force OPEC+ To Boost Output

Exxon – a name we have been bullish on since early 2020 – finally exploded today after reporting blockbuster earnings, and has helped move the entire energy sector even deeper into the green YTD amid a devastated stock market landscape…

… a move which when stripped of noise, has been due to just one thing: the ascent of oil (thank you Biden “Green” agenda and ESG for crushing energy capex spending and sending prices soaring) ever since its historic plunge in deep negative territory (at least for the WTI front contract) on April 20, 2020.

Drilling into this move, which has helped push inflation higher and send Biden’s approval rating to the toilet, Goldman’s commodity strategist Damien Courvalin writes today that Brent oil prices have rallied past $90/bbl (hitting the bank’s 1Q22 forecast), “driven by tight fundamentals, with steep inventory draws leaving the market with concerning low inventory levels across a range of petroleum products and regions.”

It is in this context that OPEC+ meets this Wednesday (February 2) to set their production plans for March, with the group so far notably quiet on their decision, and even following today’s meeting of the OPEC+ Joint Technical Committee it did not discuss an output hike of more than 400K, the baseline that has been the norm for the past few months.

And with oil fast approaching $100, or what Goldman calls “political intervention territory” Courvalin writes that while he had assumed a roll-over of the monthly 0.4 mb/d quota hike, he views “growing potential for a faster ramp-up at this meeting, given the pace of the recent rally and the likely pressure from importing nations (with prices above the small coordinated SPR releases last November).” Additionally, the producers’ group “may also be growing more concerned by the hawkish central bank shift that could lead to slower global growth and oil revenues later this year.”

The producers’ group may also be growing more concerned by the hawkish central bank shift that could lead to slower global growth and oil demand revenues this year. In fact, the recent crude builds seen in OPEC+ may portend a larger hike than expected, with similar precedents before significant production increases (e.g. Jun-18, Nov-18, Mar-20) when exports then surged.

Uncertainties also arise as a result of the current geopolitical tensions: the US has reportedly reached out to oil and gas exporters in case Russian oil exports are restricted (a low probability event in Goldman’s view) should further escalations occur in Ukraine. Such a supply increase would, however, likely be difficult from an OPEC+ alliance perspective given many members’ inability to ramp-up and the required consensus for hikes.

This is most notably the case for Russia, whose support has further been critical in all OPEC+ decisions over the last five years. Similarly, growing odds of a potential return of Iran exports would likely argue against a large increase in output. Yet, Russia’s efforts in brokering a deal between Iran and the US could point to potential de-escalation of Ukrainian tensions, potentially including an increase in oil supply.

All in, the vampire squid nonetheless sees potential for an accelerated increase in output – either by bringing forward the April quota increase forward or through a Saudi-led temporary increase in exports given Russia’s inability to increase production in recent months due to winter seasonality.

And while Goldman acknowledges that the potential outcome remains evenly balanced between an accelerated response and a status quo increase, the “oil market would likely respond more negatively to the former given the 33% uninterrupted rally over the past two-months.”

How much of a response?

Goldman’s models point to a $3/bbl impact if OPEC+ brought forward the April hike (worth 0.2 mb/d additional supply through Dec-22) or even less if Saudi increase output by 0.5 mb/d for three months.

The bank sees four additional elements that could lead to higher oil price volatility through March, beyond such an OPEC+ announcement:

  • renewed SPR headlines,
  • the inevitable easing of gas-to-oil substitution as winter ends,
  • headlines on progress of an Iran deal, and
  • the seasonally expected inventory builds.

While Courvalin’s base case assumes only a 50% probability of an Iran deal by the end of this year…

… an increase in bearish headlines on Iran deal progress would likely hit sentiment in a market desperate for spare capacity.

Finally, the bank’s high-frequency tracking of inventories has pivoted into a small surplus for the first time since a brief period in Jan-21, during the European Alpha Covid wave. Crude builds in China and some OPEC+ producers (where Omicron has spread sequentially) have so far kept DM markets and petroleum products drawing but could eventually rattle the bullish narrative.

Still, even a downside case scenario should OPEC+ boost output beyond the priced in 400bp/d would not change Goldman’s bullish view as it simply represents a shift in the risk-reward of being long oil this week.

Courvalin continues:

Oil has just posted a two-month rally that ranks in the top 99.7% of Sharpe ratio in the last twenty years.Importantly, time-spreads still look relatively undervalued vs. our expectations of OECD inventories even after the rally, and we continue to forecast $105/bbl Brent prices will be needed in 2023, with risks asymmetrically higher. Stock levels are still incredibly tight, even if we build slightly now in the shoulder demand season. The market needs to build more than 300 mb to return stocks to normal levels in days of demand over the next 18-24 months.

This remains the central thesis for Goldman’s bullish oil view – after a record long deficit, much higher oil prices are needed to replenish oil’s buffers. To that end, spare capacity remains critically low, with concerns around Russia’s, Kuwait’s, and Iraq’s productive capacity likely to materialize by summer, when demand seasonally ramps up and international travel reopens.

Finally, the shale producer guidance through the early earnings releases is running well behind Goldman assumptions (Chevron, Murphy and Hess): “a disappointment in either of these balancing mechanisms would require an even larger rally than we forecast, as by that point, it is demand destruction that will be required to finally rebalance the market.”

Translation: just like in 2008, only a recession can halt the relentless surge in oil, incidentally something we discussed two weeks ago in “Shades Of 2008 As Oil Decouples From Everything.”

Courvalin concludes that the “rapid decline in Covid cases, the strength of demand so far this year and initial earnings releases of US producers, guiding production below expectation, all reinforce our conviction in the need for sharply higher prices.” He also notes that he still sees rising disruption risks as an offset to a potential faster return of Iran production.

The bottom line: Goldman sees the outcome of tomorrow’s OPEC+ meeting as “evenly balanced” between a continuation of the current output plan for March and a bigger increase. What do others think? Here are three additional takes from Energy Aspects, RenCap and Bloomberg:

RenCap analyst Alexander Burgansky

  • Russia’s crude oil and condensate production is set to keep rising until August to around 11.4m b/d, after which it will remain at that level until year-end
  • Russia’s oil-production growth is seen at 8% in 2022, a “uniquely high” rate for the oil industry
  • Russia’s gas output to continue experiencing long-term growth, thanks to new projects led by Gazprom Neft and Rosneft
  • Gazprom’s share of Russia’s domestic gas market may fall below 60% after 2023

Energy Aspects report

  • Demand for low-sulfur fuel oil in northeast Asia from utilities has been strong in January, helping to keep the Asian market tight
  • On the supply side, China’s output of LSFO is set to increase as “majors are ramping up LSFO production in line with Beijing’s aim to further develop Zhoushan as a bunkering hub”
  • VGO “continues to be bid on bunker blending demand, while robust product margins continue to incentivise European refiners to import the feedstock” in the ARA area

Bloomberg

  • China looks set to receive significantly less crude at its ports in the next few weeks
  • With more than half of Bloomberg’s oil tanker trackers now published for January exports, the Asian country is on course to receive almost 1.6m b/d less crude than it did in December
  • Observed crude exports are on course to be down slightly — to 26.4m b/d, a decrease of about 275k b/d  — for the combined flows from 13 countries or regions. There was a large declines from Libya and UAE while a slump from Angola drove down overall flows from West Africa

 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 14:29

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eukRy5Cs Tyler Durden

Pfizer Expects Vaccines For Children 6 Months To 5 Years Within “Weeks” After Handing Data To FDA

Pfizer Expects Vaccines For Children 6 Months To 5 Years Within “Weeks” After Handing Data To FDA

The still technically experimental COVID mRNA vaccines will soon be approved for children under the age of 5 – something Dr. Anthony Fauci has repeatedly warned was only a matter of time – as Pfizer has just confirmed that it has submitted data from its experimental trials on young children, toddlers and infants to the FDA for review.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Pfizer expects jabs to be approved and made available for the youngest Americans by the end of the month, and that the company is submitting its data to regulators on Tuesday. The data would cover patients between 6 months and five years of age.

According to WaPo, the FDA has been urging the company to hurry up and hand over the data. Even CNBC’s Meg Tirrell noted that “this is a much quicker timeline than we had anticipated last week”.

Perhaps the rush is because this thing will be over soon… and along with it all the money-making opportunities?

As a reminder, Pfizer’s vaccines initially didn’t generate a strong enough immune response in children between the ages of 2-4, forcing the company to go back to the woodshed and alter the vaccine for children.

Children are much less likely to die from COVID than even a healthy adult. CDC Data has shown that children make up less than 0.1 percent of Covid deaths since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.

It’s also true of the world more broadly.

Source

While the MSM acted like the news was some major surprise, just last week, Fauci suggested that he wants to see the FDA authorise the vaccines for toddlers within a month.

“My hope is that it’s going to be within the next month or so and not much later than that, but I can’t guarantee that,” Fauci said during an interview.

“I can’t out guess the FDA. I’m going to have to leave that to them,” he added (though the doctor has repeatedly clarified that he’s not personally involved in the approval process).

A Biden administration reportedly assured WaPo that there’s nothing to fear about speeding up the vaccine’s approval for children. After all, there is “a consensus” among health officials in “seeing this move forward.”

With Pfizer’s data in, it’s likely that Moderna, its one (and only) rival in the mRNA COVID vaccine space, will soon follow suit, with FDA approvals now merely a formality.

But the question of safety remains, even if it no longer matters to the FDA.

Researchers have found that young patients have reported higher-than-normal adverse reactions to vaccination, including much higher incidences of suspicious deaths post-vaccination, enough to be reflected in the VAERS data.

Additionally, studies have questioned the risk-benefit trade-off of vaccinating the extremely young:

“For children the chances of death from COVID-19 are negligible, but the chances of serious damage over their lifetime from the toxic inoculations are not negligible,” the authors wrote in the paper, titled “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”

Finally, this push is coming as WHO’s Chief Scientist says that that “there is no evidence right now that healthy children or adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 14:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/CcjovJfWe Tyler Durden

“Industry Insiders Are Furious” After Tesla Admits Inflated Sales Numbers In Australia

“Industry Insiders Are Furious” After Tesla Admits Inflated Sales Numbers In Australia

Just yesterday, we wrote that Tesla was being accused of inflating its sales in Australia, after the company’s reported numbers didn’t jibe with the continents official registration data.

Today, we now know that Tesla did, in fact, report incorrect sales numbers for Australia, according to follow up reporting from The Drive

“Tesla Australia has done a U-turn over yesterday’s bold claim 15,000 examples of the Tesla Model 3 were sold last year,” the report, released overnight Tuesday morning, said. 

Beyhad Jafari, the CEO of the Electric Vehicle Council, had previously told The Drive he didn’t know why Tesla’s numbers stood at odds with the official data: “Our figures are directly from Tesla. We now are officially getting Tesla sales figures and we can start reporting what they have (sold in Australia). We’re confident our numbers are right.”

“I can’t explain it, I don’t know what’s gone wrong there,” he continued.

But apparently, the Electric Vehicle Council on behalf of Tesla Australia was suddenly able to figure out what was wrong. These released a statement yesterday confirming the numbers were inaccurate. 

The EVC said: “Yesterday the Electric Vehicle Council released (electric-car) sales figures for 2021, which showed a massive leap from 2020 numbers. While the massive year-on-year leap reported was correct, there was an error in the numbers the (Electric Vehicle Council) was provided relating to Tesla deliveries. Due to a human error, the Tesla delivery figures for 2020 were erroneously added to the delivery figures for 2021 by Tesla before the figure was provided to the Electric Vehicle Council.”

It continued: “So instead of 15,054 Tesla Model 3 deliveries in 2021, the figure reported should have been 12,094. Correcting the total Tesla deliveries (all models) reduces the total number of EVs delivered in 2021 from 24,078 to 20,665.”

The Drive commented that “Industry insiders are furious with Tesla and the Electric Vehicle Council for reporting false numbers yesterday” because the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries had recently switched to a “truth in reporting” policy for new car sales data. 

One senior car company executive said: “They need to be subject to the same counting methods as every other car brand in Australia. It’s time for Tesla to grow up and stop acting like a start-up.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 13:46

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/h6PIYlQnL Tyler Durden

Kid Rock Says He Won’t Perform At Venues With COVID-19 Vaccine Or Mask Mandates

Kid Rock Says He Won’t Perform At Venues With COVID-19 Vaccine Or Mask Mandates

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Kid Rock has announced that he will cancel tour dates in cities or venues that have mask or COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

In a video posted on Jan. 29, the singer, born Bob Ritchie, confirmed that several U.S. cities have already been taken off the tour list due to mask mandates and vaccine requirements.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Kid Rock (@kidrock)

Those who received tickets from venues with mandates will “be getting your money back because I won’t be showing up either.”

“If you think I’m going to sit out there and say don’t tell me how to live, ‘We The People,’ while people are holding up their [expletive] vaccine cards and wearing masks, that [expletive] ain’t happening,” he said in the video.

“We the People” features lyrics critical of President Joe Biden, Black Lives Matter, and White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci. Released on Monday, the single was at the top of various unofficial rankings of purchased iTunes singles, according to news reports.

Kid Rock added in the video that he believes that when his tour kicks off, a number of cities will have already rescinded their mandates.

“Trust me, we’ve done all our research on this and the consensus says that all this is going to be done, if there are any at these venues, I’m not aware of any, but if there are any, they’re going to be gone by the time we get to your city,” the “Bawitaba” singer added.

“If they’re not, trust me, you don’t have to worry. You’ll be getting your money back because I won’t be showing up either.”

The cities he will skip include Buffalo, New York, Toronto, Canada, as well as “several other cities,” Kid Rock said.

It came just days after singer-songwriter Neil Young recently requested Spotify remove his music because of his opposition to Joe Rogan’s podcast, accusing both Spotify and Rogan of promoting alleged misinformation about COVID-19. Days after that, singer Joni Mitchell, 78, announced she would be pulling her tracks from the service.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cy8gPDILC Tyler Durden

‘Public Health’ Has Become a Catchall Excuse for Bad Ideas


young-2-publichealth-rogan-MEGA823641_003

One of the notable developments of the pandemic era has been the tendency to use public health as a pretext for some other goal that has little or nothing to do with public health. You can see this, in different ways, in everything from Neil Young’s war on Spotify and Joe Rogan to teachers union recalcitrance to President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda. But let’s start with an issue close to my heart: the fight over to-go cocktails in the state of New York. 

Until the onset of COVID, it was illegal to purchase a to-go cocktail in New York. Bars and restaurants were strictly limited to on-premise sales. Legally, you couldn’t take your end-of-night Appletini home with you. But when local officials shut down indoor dining in 2020, they made an allowance: Cocktails produced in a bar could be sold for takeout consumption. Suddenly, that Appletini became a grab-and-go purchase.

Like many policies enacted in spring 2020, New York’s legalization of to-go cocktails was passed on an emergency basis. And in June 2021, the emergency authorization expired rather unexpectedly. 

One reason why it expired was that liquor stores, who would prefer to have the market for booze consumed at home all to themselves lobbied heavily against extending the policy. So it’s no surprise that in the weeks since New York’s Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that to-go cocktails would be back on a permanent basis, liquor stores have renewed their campaign to stop the policy. 

Among the reasons the liquor store lobby has cited for prohibiting bars and restaurants from selling to-go booze: the prospect of a “public health crisis.” As Baylen Linnekin noted recently, a lobbying group for New York liquor stores recently warned that permanent to-go cocktails could also “increase DWI incidents and underage sales,” as if it’s impossible to pop open a beer in the car on the way home from the local spirits shop, or for an adult to purchase a bottle of Jameson and pass it off to a minor.  

In any case, what we have is an industry whose entire business revolves around selling booze for people to consume at home strenuously objecting to a law that would expand the ways in which people consume alcohol at home—for public health reasons. Sure. 

You don’t have to be all that sober to see that there are other motives in play here: Just read the lobbying group’s statement, which also warns that Hochul’s proposal to permanently legalize to-go sales “will devastate our liquor stores.” Given the recent boom in liquor store sales, I’m skeptical that bars and restaurants selling pricey, single-serving, take-home cocktails are all that much of a threat to those whose business involves selling big jugs of Jameson. But in any case, it’s clear that the liquor stores are mostly motivated by the threat of competition, not concerns about public health. 

There’s something at least a little bit similar at work in the recent battle of the bands between Neil Young, Joe Rogan, and Spotify. Last week, Young denounced Rogan’s interviews with vaccine skeptics, demanding that the streaming music service ditch Rogan—and saying that if it didn’t, he wanted his music removed from the service. Not surprisingly, given that Spotify had awarded Rogan a $100 million contract back in 2020, the service stuck with the extremely popular Rogan. Young’s songs will be removed from the service. 

Was this really about vaccines? Well, maybe. Probably partly. But there were almost certainly other preexisting concerns in play as well. Neil Young, one of pop music’s most outspoken audiophiles, has long been a critic of streaming music, and Spotify in particular, since Spotify does not currently offer high-resolution audio.

Years ago, when Apple’s digital music business was still developing, Young backed an expensive device to rival the iPhone, the Pono, which was built for high-resolution music. And in 2015, before high-resolution digital music became common, Young took his music down from all streaming services, complaining that low-quality streaming “devalued” his music.

So Young had a preexisting gripe with Spotify’s service that had nothing to do with Rogan’s interviews.

It wasn’t much of a surprise to see that after Young’s music came down last week, he posted another note saying that he felt “better” having left “the shitty degraded and neutered sound of Spotify.” He further warned that “if you support Spotify, you are destroying an art form” and told listeners who used the service they should “go to a new place that truly cares about music quality.”

Exactly how much of Young’s decision was about Rogan and vaccines, I cannot say. But it seems reasonable to suspect that at least some of Young’s decision to leave Spotify came as a result of his longstanding complaints about audio quality—which he’d pulled his music from streaming services over before—rather than about Joe Rogan’s influence on public health. But public health was the reason the old rock star gave for leaving, and the one that made headlines, perhaps not incidentally putting Young in the spotlight. (Surely unrelated: Did you know he has a new album and documentary out?) Public health provided Young a pretext for doing what he already wanted to do, and gave him attention in the process. 

Everywhere you look these days, you can see versions of this tendency, in large and small ways: Teachers unions have spent the last two years using public health fears as an excuse to stay out of classrooms. Biden and congressional Democrats have used the pandemic as an excuse for massive expansions of social spending that have little to do with responding to the coronavirus. 

It’s not that every emergency measure or public stand taken in response to the pandemic has been a cynical act of self-advancement. No doubt some have been the product of sincere, if sometimes misguided, desires to improve public well-being. But some amount of cynicism seems appropriate; the totalizing emergency of the pandemic has created an aura of permission whereby moves that might otherwise seem selfish can be recast as pure and selfless when the reality is anything but.

The post 'Public Health' Has Become a Catchall Excuse for Bad Ideas appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/HNQmcoMgk
via IFTTT

White House, Fed Warn Omicron Might Have Serious Impact On January’s Jobs Number

White House, Fed Warn Omicron Might Have Serious Impact On January’s Jobs Number

Get ready for a sub-zero jobs print…

Brian Deese, a top economic advisor to President Biden and former “global head of sustainability” at BlackRock, became the latest Biden henchman to warn that omicron might have a larger than expected impact on January’s jobs numbers when he spoke to the press on Tuesday.

  • OMICRON EXPECTED TO IMPACT JAN. JOB NUMBERS: DEESE

Of course, Deese isn’t the first Biden lacky to start priming the public (and the markets) for another huge payrolls miss.

During yesterday’s White House press briefing, Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed because of the surge in people calling out sick during the first half of January (when the data were being collected), the influence of omicron might have substantially alerted the headline number, potentially even causing it to go negative. The US hasn’t had a negative monthly NFP jobs print since December 2020.

“Because omicron was so highly transmissible, nearly 9 million people called out sick in early January when the jobs data was being collected,” Psaki told reporters. “The week the survey was taken was at the height of the omicron spike…As a result, the jobs report may show job losses, in large part because workers were out sick from omicron at a point when it was peaking.”

Already, a Census Survey shows that an estimated 8.75MM Americans said they were not working in early January, either because they were infected with COVID or taking care of someone else who had contracted the virus. That’s roughly 3x the level from the prior month.

And they aren’t alone. At least two Fed presidents have warned about Friday’s jobs print in recent days. Yesterday, Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic warned that January number would be lower than December and November.

But before investors start to worry, Philly Fed President Patrick Harker explained why he is a little less convinced that the Fed will hike rates 50 basis points because of the state of the economy, adding that the central bank needs to wait and see how the economic data looks over the coming weeks.

So, once again, ‘bad news is good news’ for stocks so please ignore the negative jobs print.

There’s already some signs in the economic data that January’s jobs number good reason to expect a low, or even negative, headline jobs number this month. One closely watched leading indicator, the ISM Composite Jobs Index, has fallen to its lowest level in months.

The US economy hasn’t shed jobs since December 2020, when some 306,000 jobs disappeared as COVID cases soared while the government scrambled to produce a COVID vaccine. The median forecast among economists surveyed by Bloomberg is 150K, down from 199K as more economists have come around to this dimmer view.

Biden’s people are already trying to get ahead of a negative number. But with the president’s approval rating already in the gutter thanks to surging prices at the pump (and everywhere else), we look forward to watching him trying to spin this one.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/KxQPXb2LI Tyler Durden

‘Public Health’ Has Become a Catchall Excuse for Bad Ideas


young-2-publichealth-rogan-MEGA823641_003

One of the notable developments of the pandemic era has been the tendency to use public health as a pretext for some other goal that has little or nothing to do with public health. You can see this, in different ways, in everything from Neil Young’s war on Spotify and Joe Rogan to teachers union recalcitrance to President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda. But let’s start with an issue close to my heart: the fight over to-go cocktails in the state of New York. 

Until the onset of COVID, it was illegal to purchase a to-go cocktail in New York. Bars and restaurants were strictly limited to on-premise sales. Legally, you couldn’t take your end-of-night Appletini home with you. But when local officials shut down indoor dining in 2020, they made an allowance: Cocktails produced in a bar could be sold for takeout consumption. Suddenly, that Appletini became a grab-and-go purchase.

Like many policies enacted in spring 2020, New York’s legalization of to-go cocktails was passed on an emergency basis. And in June 2021, the emergency authorization expired rather unexpectedly. 

One reason why it expired was that liquor stores, who would prefer to have the market for booze consumed at home all to themselves lobbied heavily against extending the policy. So it’s no surprise that in the weeks since New York’s Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that to-go cocktails would be back on a permanent basis, liquor stores have renewed their campaign to stop the policy. 

Among the reasons the liquor store lobby has cited for prohibiting bars and restaurants from selling to-go booze: the prospect of a “public health crisis.” As Baylen Linnekin noted recently, a lobbying group for New York liquor stores recently warned that permanent to-go cocktails could also “increase DWI incidents and underage sales,” as if it’s impossible to pop open a beer in the car on the way home from the local spirits shop, or for an adult to purchase a bottle of Jameson and pass it off to a minor.  

In any case, what we have is an industry whose entire business revolves around selling booze for people to consume at home strenuously objecting to a law that would expand the ways in which people consume alcohol at home—for public health reasons. Sure. 

You don’t have to be all that sober to see that there are other motives in play here: Just read the lobbying group’s statement, which also warns that Hochul’s proposal to permanently legalize to-go sales “will devastate our liquor stores.” Given the recent boom in liquor store sales, I’m skeptical that bars and restaurants selling pricey, single-serving, take-home cocktails are all that much of a threat to those whose business involves selling big jugs of Jameson. But in any case, it’s clear that the liquor stores are mostly motivated by the threat of competition, not concerns about public health. 

There’s something at least a little bit similar at work in the recent battle of the bands between Neil Young, Joe Rogan, and Spotify. Last week, Young denounced Rogan’s interviews with vaccine skeptics, demanding that the streaming music service ditch Rogan—and saying that if it didn’t, he wanted his music removed from the service. Not surprisingly, given that Spotify had awarded Rogan a $100 million contract back in 2020, the service stuck with the extremely popular Rogan. Young’s songs will be removed from the service. 

Was this really about vaccines? Well, maybe. Probably partly. But there were almost certainly other preexisting concerns in play as well. Neil Young, one of pop music’s most outspoken audiophiles, has long been a critic of streaming music, and Spotify in particular, since Spotify does not currently offer high-resolution audio.

Years ago, when Apple’s digital music business was still developing, Young backed an expensive device to rival the iPhone, the Pono, which was built for high-resolution music. And in 2015, before high-resolution digital music became common, Young took his music down from all streaming services, complaining that low-quality streaming “devalued” his music.

So Young had a preexisting gripe with Spotify’s service that had nothing to do with Rogan’s interviews.

It wasn’t much of a surprise to see that after Young’s music came down last week, he posted another note saying that he felt “better” having left “the shitty degraded and neutered sound of Spotify.” He further warned that “if you support Spotify, you are destroying an art form” and told listeners who used the service they should “go to a new place that truly cares about music quality.”

Exactly how much of Young’s decision was about Rogan and vaccines, I cannot say. But it seems reasonable to suspect that at least some of Young’s decision to leave Spotify came as a result of his longstanding complaints about audio quality—which he’d pulled his music from streaming services over before—rather than about Joe Rogan’s influence on public health. But public health was the reason the old rock star gave for leaving, and the one that made headlines, perhaps not incidentally putting Young in the spotlight. (Surely unrelated: Did you know he has a new album and documentary out?) Public health provided Young a pretext for doing what he already wanted to do, and gave him attention in the process. 

Everywhere you look these days, you can see versions of this tendency, in large and small ways: Teachers unions have spent the last two years using public health fears as an excuse to stay out of classrooms. Biden and congressional Democrats have used the pandemic as an excuse for massive expansions of social spending that have little to do with responding to the coronavirus. 

It’s not that every emergency measure or public stand taken in response to the pandemic has been a cynical act of self-advancement. No doubt some have been the product of sincere, if sometimes misguided, desires to improve public well-being. But some amount of cynicism seems appropriate; the totalizing emergency of the pandemic has created an aura of permission whereby moves that might otherwise seem selfish can be recast as pure and selfless when the reality is anything but.

The post 'Public Health' Has Become a Catchall Excuse for Bad Ideas appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/HNQmcoMgk
via IFTTT

This Texas Town Rejected Stimulus Money to Avoid Vaccine Mandates


texas refusal funds thumb4

The American Rescue Plan Act, which was signed by President Joe Biden on March 11, 2021, allocated $19.5 billion in federal aid to municipalities with populations of less than 50,000.

Brady, Texas, population 5,500, was offered $1.3 million. But it turned the money down.

“Obviously we could have used the money, but at what cost?” Brady-based activist and lobbyist Sheila Hemphill told Reason.

Brady was one of at least 243 small towns across the country to reject or return the federal stimulus aid. Residents were concerned that in return for the money, the government would have the right to audit how the funds were used. They were also worried that the money would allow the Biden administration to force the town to comply with its executive order mandating vaccination for all employees at companies with more than 100 workers. Though it was later struck down by the Supreme Court, the order wouldn’t have had much of an impact on Brady regardless since its school district is the only organization in town large enough to be impacted.

For the residents of Brady, it was the principle that mattered.

Today it’s about the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. But the big problem is it’s an executive order that could be who knows what, because that comes with the stroke of a pen,” said Hemphill.

Sixty-seven other Texas towns followed suit. Among them was Mason, which has a population of 2,400 and turned down $570,000.

Sue Pledger, a Mason city commissioner, learned about the potential drawbacks of accepting stimulus money from Hemphill. “The federal government has no right to come in and audit us, has no right to our financial records,” she told Reason. “We haven’t entered a contract…We’re separate, and that’s the way we want to keep it here in Mason.”

“We had very strong support in a very short time that we had made the right choice, based on what representing the citizens in this community meant. It meant giving back the funds, staying sovereign, keeping our independence, not giving the federal government a foot in our finances, or over what we do with our contracts.”

Mike Maharrey, the national director of communications for The Tenth Amendment Center, says that the government has a long track record of using federal money to extend its control over states. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine gives Brady the right to refuse to enforce executive orders, but the stimulus funding gives the federal government the power to say if you don’t “‘enforce these various mandates and regulations…we can take the money back,'” Maharrey told Reason.

Nationwide, the share of each state’s total revenue contributed by the federal government ranges from nearly half to a quarter, and that money generally comes with conditions.

Bribery is a very good term for what the federal government is doing,” says Maharrey. “The only way that you can avoid the consequences of being bribed is to not take the bribe.”

He adds: “In a lot of cases you don’t know specifically what those strings are going to be because the federal government writes these contracts or agreements in such a way as to give the federal government a great deal of latitude to kind of retroactively fit in what policies they want in place.”

Maharrey says a system that gives power to local governments is the better of two evils. “I’m not somebody who’s all for decentralization because I think state and local governments are somehow better. They’re just as bad as the federal government. But as with any system, a decentralized system is going to be better for the individual than a monopoly system…I’d rather deal with 50 different states than have everything, one-size-fits-all, emanating from the federal government.”

Produced and edited by John Osterhoudt, camera by Osterhoudt and Zach Weissmueller, additional graphics by Isaac Reese

Photos: Abaca Press/Gripas Yuri/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom; Earl S. Cryer/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; MEGA/Newscom; Coolcaesar/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Videos: Brady Chamber of Commerce; City of Brady; Kelly L from Pexels.

The post This Texas Town Rejected Stimulus Money to Avoid Vaccine Mandates appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3HBW5Nm29
via IFTTT

ESG Investing – The Great Wall Street Money Heist

ESG Investing – The Great Wall Street Money Heist

Authored by Lance Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Wall Street is once again in the midst of a “money heist” from naive investors. This time in the form of “woke activism” called ESG.

ESG refers to the Environmental, Social, and Governance risk theoretically embedded in a business. However, while ESG investing is about taking these risks into account in investment decisions, these are all the things NOT on a company’s balance sheet or earnings statements. Such is the inherent problem.

However, as is also the case, with the recent surge in liberal policies, woke activism, and demand for social justice, Wall Street is more than willing to sell products to fill a need. Not surprisingly, with plenty of media coverage, ESG investing has become an enormous business.

Following the financial crisis, ESG funds had roughly a ZERO market share of total assets under management. Today, ESG-labelled funds in the United States exceed $16 trillion.

The question is whether investors are getting what they are paying for?

What Are You Paying For

In the late ’90s, there was a significant movement by Wall Street to limit investing in “sin” stocks such as gambling, tobacco, etc. Just as it was then, investors initially jumped on board, but when returns failed to match the S&P index, that “fad” died away.

The same occurs today as investors who want to be “woke” are demanding products that make them feel good to purchase. However, there are many problems with ESG outside the labeling.

There are currently no universal rules to analyze ESG risks. Nor are there any clear frameworks to police ESG-labelled investment products. As Eco-Business previously noted:

“For example, deforestation is a major driver of climate change. You would think it’s being used as a filter to ensure companies in ESG-labelled funds are not turning a blind eye to deforestation, but you would be wrong. Carbon Tracker, an industry ‘think tank,’ found that 78% of mutual fund providers offered ESG investments. However, none specifically excluded deforestation risk. Not a single one actively priced climate risk either.”

Let me give you an example of the top 10-holdings of two ETF’s. One is specifically labeled an ESG fund; the other is the S&P 500 Index.

Example of the top 10-holdings of two ETF’s. One is specifically labeled an ESG fund; the other is the S&P 500 Index. (Table courtesy of RealInvesmentAdvice.com / Source Data: ETF.com)

So, precisely what are you paying for?

More Scam Than Benefit

The problem with ESG funds is that inconsistencies and abuse are rife.

“BNP Paribas, the largest bank in the Eurozone, never wastes an opportunity to boast of its green credentials. It’s also the world’s top banker of offshore oil and gas over the last five years and managed to increase fossil fuels lending since the Paris agreement. Here’s the same BNP on sustainable investing: ‘Why sustainable investing? Quite simply, it is worth it.’ BNP peddles ESG products to its clients with one hand, while its other hand fuels the climate crisis.” – Eco-Business

Another example is the recent Exxon Mobil board seat challenge by Engine No. 1. With the backing of Blackrock and several pension funds with close ties to Blackrock, Engine No. 1 secured three board seats for the company.

“And guess what? BlackRock backed this no-name cadre of woke activists, even as Exxon persuasively argued that Engine No. 1 wasn’t qualified to help run an oil company. With BlackRock on the fund’s side, ExxonMobil eventually folded like a cheap tent.” – Eco-Business

The NY Post made an interesting point.

“Now with Engine No. 1 likely to occupy three seats on Exxon’s board, it isn’t too much of a stretch to see the company passing Fink’s ESG screens for his ETFs with flying colors.”

Good For Me

If you think investment managers are doing it for the “good of the environment,” think again.

“Investment managers and banks are taking advantage of our collective willingness to help fight climate change because the ESG space is, to put it mildly, a zoo.

Epic greenwashing is everywhere: Out of 253 funds that switched to an ESG focus in 2020 in the US, 87 percent of them rebranded by adding words such as ‘sustainable’ or “ESG” or ‘green’ or ‘climate’ to their names.

None changed their stock or bond holdings at that point.” – Eco-Business

Why would they change their name and not their holdings? Good question.

Show Me The Money

“Complete fraud, a joke, jargon, so ridiculous” were among the choice words Social Capital founder and CEO Chamath Palihapitiya used to describe the growing ESG movement.

“These are useful statements. It’s great marketing. But again it’s a lot of sizzle, no steak.”

With ESG now the rage, the “demand” drives product development. However, there is also an understanding of why large asset managers have embraced the strategy so readily—higher fees.

Let’s revisit the table of the two funds above, now fully disclosed.

Example of the top 10-holdings of two ETF’s. One is specifically labeled an ESG fund; the other is the S&P 500 Index. (Table courtesy of RealInvesmentAdvice.com / Source Data: ETF.com)

Yes, you too can own an ESG fund that is almost three times as expensive as the S&P 500 index, all for the sake of “feeling good about yourself.”

According to The Wall Street Journal:

“Citing ETF data from FactSet, it found the ESG funds’ average fee was 0.2% at the end of last year, while standard ETFs that invest in U.S. large-cap stocks had a 0.14% fee on average. A firm managing $1 billion in a typical ESG fund, for example, would garner $2 million in annual fees versus managing the standard ETF’s $1.4 million.”

Look again at the table above. Furthermore, there are virtually no significant differences in the ESG ETF except that Blackrock put their company stock in the lineup. But, of course, there is “no self-serving purpose” in doing that except that as billions pour into the ETF, it boosts Blackrock’s stock price.

“The kicker, of course, is that ESG strategies aren’t any more expensive to run than their more-traditional counterparts.” – Wall Street Journal

Oh, and by the way, while you are complaining about how Wall Street has created a “wealth gap” in America, remember every time you buy their funds, you are increasing THEIR wealth more than yours.

Wall Street Wins Again

“If governance is a hard quality to measure, rating a company’s environmental and social impact—the other two-thirds of hot investment style ESG—is even more challenging. But where the money flows, accusations of fraud follow and in 2020 there has been no shortage of examples of businesses claiming high ESG credentials with little merit.” – Investors’ Chronicle

The problem with ESG, while the concept is undoubtedly well-intentioned, is that where money flows, greed always follows.

“There probably aren’t that many companies in the ESG universe that actually make a positive contribution to society, I suspect the vast majority of the money [being invested in ESG] is going to be misallocated.” – Carson Block, founder of short activist Muddy Waters

Here is something else for investors to consider.

ETFs are supposed to carry lower fees than regular funds because they mirror a typical basket of stocks like the S&P 500, as shown above. However, by “claiming” to have ESG screening methods, Wall Street found a way to inflate management fees of a simplistic investment.

“In fact, studies show that management fees on ESG funds are more than 40 percent higher than other ETFs. BlackRock currently manages about $200 billion in ESG client money, which means that number is likely to grow and add to BlackRock’s profits.” – NY Post

Laughing To The Bank

Unfortunately, for investors, while these funds cost much more to own, their performance isn’t any better than just holding the substantially cheaper index fund. As shown, the correlation between Blackrock’s USA ESG fund and the S&P 500 Index is almost perfect.

10-day rolling returns correlation between SUSA and SPY. (Chart courtesy of Michael Lebowitz, CFA)

“These funds lately haven’t beat ­indices that are simply created to make you money and only do so when they pack themselves with high-flying tech names. Sounds good on paper — until you drill down.

For starters, such investing methods are highly political and veer far to the left. Companies often get good grades for supporting lefty causes such as Black Lives Matter. Oil companies like Exxon will get higher marks for building wind farms that produce energy inefficiently.

But here’s where Larry Fink and BlackRock still come out ahead: They have sensed that with all the media hype of ESG investing as the next frontier, they can also make a lot of money creating a new type of fund dedicated specifically to ESG — and then charge more for it.” – NY Post

In short, while Wall Street pushes out products to make “you” feel like you are socially responsible, they laugh all the way to the bank.

“Will the rest of the investors make money? Quibbles.” – NY Post

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SCMYRtHkJ Tyler Durden