Greta Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations may have grabbed the climate change headlines. But for those who find policy prescriptions from someone not yet out of high school a publicity stunt, the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2019 International Energy Outlook was more interesting.

.avia-image-container.av-2g814sx-24b2b367e3b1e170348b1c370edcb9fb img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-2g814sx-24b2b367e3b1e170348b1c370edcb9fb .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

.avia-image-container.av-211arzl-1b87ee365830591456fa83875c615dd0 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-211arzl-1b87ee365830591456fa83875c615dd0 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wants the world to reduce man-made net CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, in order to limit global warming to a further 1.5 degrees C. By contrast, the EIA expects energy-related CO2 emissions to grow at 0.6% annually, a third of the 1990-2018 rate but nonetheless in the wrong direction. This is because the EIA forecasts world energy use to increase by nearly 50%, with virtually all that growth in non-OECD Asia (often referred to as Asia ex-Japan).

According to Climate Tracker, only two countries (Morocco and Gambia) are on track to meet their goals under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which turned the IPCC’s recommendations into governmental commitments.

The goal of lowering emissions is at conflict with many other UN goals, such as eliminating poverty and hunger, and ensuring access to clean water and sanitation. Non-OECD countries are generally where these goals need to be met, and their pursuit is increasing energy consumption. The rich-country OECD world wants reduced CO2 emissions while poorer non-OECD countries additionally want higher living standards.

.avia-image-container.av-61qi6p-f96bdd721753f9c33b3c234dd0a8ab8e img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-61qi6p-f96bdd721753f9c33b3c234dd0a8ab8e .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The charts in the EIA’s outlook provide a sobering picture of the incompatibility of these objectives. Rising non-OECD living standards will by 2050 remain still 25% less than in the OECD today, and less than half the 2050 rich world level. This is in spite of growth in world energy consumption being fully taken up by non-OECD countries. Indian per capita residential energy consumption is still expected to be less than a quarter of U.S. by 2050.

Emerging Asia is the major source of this growth. India’s population is projected to surpass China’s over the next couple of decades, driving India’s faster GDP growth and also making India the fastest growing user of coal. China will remain biggest overall.

Growth in Indian electricity demand will be primarily met with renewables. It’s easier to shift your mix of power generation when consumption is growing. Yet India will still double its output from coal-fired power plants.

The reason almost none of the signatories to the Paris Agreement are on track to achieve their emission goals is that public support is broad but shallow. One survey found most U.S. households wouldn’t spend more than $10 per month to fight climate change.

.avia-image-container.av-10t0h1t-7b3ad26a3b184767dbfc4e6aff86e65a img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-10t0h1t-7b3ad26a3b184767dbfc4e6aff86e65a .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Yet, dramatic reductions in emissions require substantial lifestyle changes with more expensive energy. Renewables are slowly gaining market share, but regardless of the promises of environmental extremists, all serious forecasts show fossil fuels remaining the world’s dominant source of energy. The EIA projects that we’ll be using more of all sources of energy. Consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels will grow by 20%; natural gas by 40%. Renewables are expected to almost double their share of world energy, to around 28% by 2050, but satisfying growing global energy demand will require substantial growth in hydrocarbons.

.avia-image-container.av-ijf7e9-587722a3ca30a31fab27ad4084b84fd6 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-ijf7e9-587722a3ca30a31fab27ad4084b84fd6 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Few Americans realize that the U.S. would need to reduce its CO2 emissions by around 15% over the next decade to meet its pledge, and that we’re generating 3.5X the amount that’s scientists believe is consistent with 1.5 degree planetary warming. If the U.S. had a plan to meet its pledge on emissions reduction, cost would quickly become an issue.

A big shift to renewables in the U.S. would raise the cost of energy. This is indisputable, because otherwise renewables would already be dominant. Climate extremists rarely discuss the costs, whereas we’ll need to make informed decisions about costs versus benefits.

Moreover, those most exposed to rising sea levels live in poor countries where emissions will continue to increase in order to raise living standards. Rich countries are far better able to manage the effects of changing climate. No U.S. politician has yet had to explain why Americans should pay more for energy in order to protect other countries from rising sea levels, even while those countries increase CO2 emissions. Trump’s planned withdrawal from the Paris Agreement next year is grounded in domestic political reality.

Paris pledges allow India, China and other non-OECD countries to continue increasing their emissions, acknowledging that increased living standards require more energy. While there is a moral argument in support of higher CO2 emissions from poorer countries, U.S. public opinion is untested on the issue of expensively curtailing domestic emissions to accommodate more output elsewhere. This will eventually be a significant political problem. Domestic environmental extremists are completely mis-directed. Growth in emissions is coming from Asia.

How will the world resolve its conflicting goals?

There are some sensible solutions: Federal standards and fast-track approval process for nuclear energy, which is clean and safe; phase-out coal with its harmful emissions in favor of cleaner natural gas; a carbon tax; Federal R&D into cleaner use of what works, which is fossil fuels.

All these steps and more will be needed to tackle the problem. Unfortunately, Democrat solutions such as the Green New Deal (see The Bovine Green Dream) and banning fracking are hopelessly impractical. Because their ideas have little prospect of implementation, Republicans aren’t pressured to offer alternative ideas.

The EIA’s report shows what world energy consumption will look like without significant changes in policies. Practical, centrist solutions that acknowledge trade-offs will be needed to develop deeper support for combating climate change. Voters will want to understand what they’re paying for. Until that happens, fringe policy prescriptions will scare people away. Greta Thunberg’s political grandstanding isn’t helping.

For constitutional observers, each weekly Brexit installment leaves viewers on the edge of their seats, pondering what further twists in the drama remain. Most recently, England’s Supreme Court ruled against Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament. Intended to stifle parliamentary debate during the run-up to Britain’s next Brexit deadline of October 31, the PM had argued that the extended closure was a normal prorogation leading to the Queen’s speech opening parliament’s next session. Nobody was fooled, and Johnson has in effect been found to have provided illegal advice when he asked the Queen to suspend Parliament. Great embarrassment for PM and Monarch. Civil wars are fought for less.

Johnson’s premiership opened shakily last month. He lost four straight votes while Parliament passed a law preventing a hard Brexit. The PM had pledged to leave the EU on October 31, with or without a deal, and Parliament disagreed. He then tried to call an early election. But the opposition preferred him in office but not in power for a few more weeks, so voted that down too. The PM subsequently kicked 21 MPs out of the Conservative party, including Nick Soames, Churchill’s grandson.

As a vocal Brexit supporter, it’s entirely appropriate that Boris Johnson should be in power right now, so as to carry the burden of the policy he championed, and to explain any disruption in its execution.

The country where I grew up has suffered from a complete void of competent political leadership in recent years. David Cameron’s decision to hold the referendum on Brexit in 2016 unleashed the divisiveness that has dominated UK politics ever since. Leaving the EU is far too complex to be based on a simple Yes/No vote. It should have been fought through a general election, with the winner responsible for carrying it out. Except that none of the major political parties supported Brexit, a political gulf starkly exposed by the referendum. When politicians don’t reflect voters’ views, populism follows. It is democratic, if unsettling

If you know someone’s location you can pretty much guess how they voted. London and other large cities along with Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, while suburban and rural England voted to leave. No wonder the Scots may seek independence from the UK, as they’re dragged unwillingly out of the EU. Although the vote was close (52%:48%), and didn’t provide any view on what type of EU exit was approved (though it probably wasn’t a hard Brexit), polls suggest that few voters’ positions have since moderated.

People regularly ask me how it’ll turn out. I don’t think anyone can be sure. Since Parliament has outlawed Brexit with no deal, but also failed to approve Theresa May’s exit deal when she was PM, another delay is possible. Johnson could negotiate a revised exit agreement and get it through Parliament, which will now be reconvening earlier because of the Supreme Court decision. But he’s lost his majority by ejecting Conservative MPs who previously voted against him, so he may fail in getting his deal through too.

Another Brexit delay would lead to a general election, on which Brexit would finally be the defining issue. It’s recasting normal voting patterns. The Conservatives are unambiguously the Brexit party.

Labor is led by Socialist Jeremy Corbyn, whose main accomplishment has been to offer such a dystopian vision of Britain under his premiership that Theresa May clung to power far longer than her inept negotiations should have allowed. Labor’s Brexit position is ambiguous, an odd posture when it’s the country #1 issue. They’re choosing strategic flexibility at the cost of votes.

The Lib-Dems are the Remain party. But they routinely run a distant third, which renders their popular vote vastly under-represented in Britain’s first past the post electoral system. Hence, Lib-Dem votes are often regarded as wasted, like voting for a third candidate in a U.S. presidential election.

As a result, Johnson is betting that he’ll romp home with a decisive majority over a divided Labor party and weakly supported Lib-Dems. So far his judgment has been poor on every big issue. So we’ll see how that turns out for him.

I have close friends on both sides of Brexit, and can well appreciate the emotions supporting leaving the EU even though I would have voted to Remain. I’ll be visiting the UK next week, and have little doubt it will be a topic of discussion.

In any event, I no longer vote in the UK, having emigrated over thirty years ago, thereby forfeiting my UK voting rights. Instead, I vote in the U.S. at every opportunity, including primaries and even school board elections. Brexit is an utterly absorbing spectacle for this transplanted Brit, safely ensconced in the U.S. Those who criticize America’s dysfunctional politics should watch the UK for a few days. Its democratic institutions are proving robust, in spite of the efforts of the current crop of leaders to break them.

EU history is full of late night crisis negotiations that avert catastrophe. Surely the biggest crisis of all will ultimately be resolved this way. My bet is that the UK will leave with a new deal, and as ill-advised as that move is, they’ll muddle through and things will work out. But there’s a wide range of possible outcomes, and next week I may change my mind again.

Clients often want to discuss the correlation between returns on midstream energy infrastructure and crude oil prices. Prior to 2014, investors learned that pipelines were like toll roads, more concerned with the volumes passing through than its value.

The 2014-16 crude oil collapse drove down the energy sector. Alerian’s index shed 58.2% over eighteen months, and the faith was lost. Conventional wisdom became that the pipeline business took a hit with lower oil. The truth was more nuanced – sector EBITDA grew throughout that period even while stock prices sagged (see REITS: Pipeline Dividends Got You Beat). Financing growth projects caused distribution cuts (see It’s the Distributions, Stupid!), alienating income-seeking investors.

Regular readers know the story, which is recounted in the links above.

.avia-image-container.av-vc4f8c-25c0445c1664ec66572b33e0e0cfc91e img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-vc4f8c-25c0445c1664ec66572b33e0e0cfc91e .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Many would regard the chart below as confirming the high correlation between midstream and crude that they know to be the case. In fact, the correlation since the beginning of last year is 0.21, positive but not that meaningful. The nature of the calculation is that brief periods of sharp opposite moves have an outsized effect on the resulting number, compared with what a casual glance at a chart might imply.

The latter half of 2018 was probably one of the most frustrating periods for investors in recent years. Crude oil rallied strongly during the summer, while midstream stocks slumped. In the fall, crude fell sharply as the stocks continued falling. Statistically, the summer’s negative correlation followed by a positive one in the fall resulted no correlation for the entire period. But investors, reasonably enough, recall the period with more feeling than the statistics might suggest.

The answer is that midstream energy infrastructure tends to move with the overall energy sector – not surprising, since the E&P names are its customers. The S&P Energy ETF (XLE) moves with crude, which drives sentiment. Natural gas and associated liquids are more important than oil to pipelines but daily gyrations have little effect.

Questions on how the sector will hold up if interest rates rise are less common. Perhaps investors have tired of worrying about rising rates. Or maybe the sector volatility in recent years has pushed away many income-seeking investors.

.avia-image-container.av-rt4nwc-37da06c7be1aaeff5bbcd86deef71418 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-rt4nwc-37da06c7be1aaeff5bbcd86deef71418 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The recent stumble in sectors that had long outperformed (see Momentum Crash Supports Pipeline Sector) coincided with a jump in bond yields. In the first two weeks of September, yields jumped 0.4%. But midstream stocks rallied, since fund flows were dominated by a shift to value and comparative yield spreads mattered little.

We think the attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure (see Saturday`s Attack Is A Game Changer) favors U.S. exporters of oil and gas by highlighting the risk of supply disruption out of the Persian Gulf. But putting geopolitics aside, WeWork’s aborted IPO set the negative tone for momentum stocks. Perhaps the correlation that matters is the negative one between unicorns and tangible energy infrastructure.