Swiss Reject California Living

On Sunday, Swiss voters narrowly rejected increased taxes on users of fossil fuels. The measure was promoted by the government as necessary to ensure Switzerland can meet its commitment under the Paris climate accord. Following the government’s defeat, plans to meet Switzerland’s 2030 emissions goals have been derailed.

8.5 million Swiss people emit around 0.1% of global CO2, roughly 1/300th of China, so they’re scarcely much of a problem. Switzerland already generates two thirds of its electricity from hydropwer, so although the infrastructure of modern renewables is mercifully not ubiquitous in the picturesque Alpine valleys, the Swiss can claim to be doing their bit.

But the vote does reveal the shallow support climate policies have once they come with a price tag. The energy transition should cost money because renewables are far less efficient than conventional energy. Otherwise the landscape would already be carpeted with solar panels and windmills. And there’s a good case that rich countries should be willing to spend more for cleaner energy, as a sensible risk mitigant acknowledging the possibility of future climate damage. But environmental extremists have failed to make a persuasive case. Joe Biden talks about green jobs and disingenuously glosses over costs. If it’s urgent it should be worth paying for.

The energy transition is fundamentally bad news whose enormous cost true believers in a threatened climate should loudly embrace. But the message that this generation should accept lower living standards to save tomorrow’s isn’t a reliable pathway to electoral success. Greta Thunberg hissing “How dare you” was theatre at the UN, but so far hasn’t reached too many bumper stickers for political office. Politicians are loathe to deliver bad news.

On the same day Swiss voters rejected paying to help lower emissions, managers of California’s power grid pleaded for households to conserve energy during a forecast heatwave so as to avoid power cuts to their parsimoniously supplied population. ERCOT, which runs the Texas power grid, did the same. It’s no coincidence that two states heavily reliant on renewables can’t provide enough electricity.

The Golden State has some of the most expensive power in America as well as its least reliable. Few would want to emulate their model, which is hurtling towards intermittent sun and wind  while abandoning everything else that works, including nuclear. With Californians selflessly enduring expensive electricity tenuously delivered, this relieves others of the need to emulate them — including China and India, whose growing emissions are partly accommodated by California’s altruism.

Perhaps Swiss voters don’t want to live like Californians.

Meanwhile energy demand keeps rising, driving prices higher and exacerbated by environmental extremists who press for less investment in new oil and gas production. Energy investors are grateful (see Profiting From The Efforts Of Climate Extremists).

On another topic, this week’s two-day FOMC meeting has drawn increased interest. The Fed’s aggressively accomodative monetary policy, which includes buying over half the government’s debt issuance since Covid began, is widely criticized. Economists expect the FOMC to indicate an eventual winding down of QE. Paul Tudor Jones said he thought a failure to do so would drive investors into inflation sensitive assets such as commodities, gold and bitcoin. But he added that tapering would also hurt bonds, which sounds like a bearish stance on fixed income in either scenario.

We agree. The eurodollar December 2021 — December 2022 spread (“Dec red Dec”) at under 20 reflects around a 75% chance of a 1Q23 tightening. That isn’t far from consensus, which means it doesn’t provide any premium for the possibility markets conclude the Fed has overdone the debt monetization. Taking the opposite side of this trade is like selling under-priced put options on the Fed’s reputation for accurate forecasting. The Dec red Dec spread should be wider.

We are invested in all the components of the American Energy Independence Index via the ETF that seeks to track its performance.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
2 replies
  1. Darren+McCammon
    Darren+McCammon says:

    Last weekend I participated in a geological society tour of two existing geothermal plants in Nevada in order to find out what I can from the plants, presenters, and even more importantly other attendees. I learned a lot, including that both plants have PPA’s with California entities even though they are located in the middle of Nevada. Kind of strange that they aren’t selling to Reno, Vegas or Salt Lake City despite the closer proximity, instead they are selling to those in California willing to pay a premium price for renewable baseload power. I also note one of them went bankrupt at one point as the debt to build the plant was not serviceable by the energy produced. Bottom line, it’s all about the premium/subsidy, without that even baseload geothermal in premier locations fail.


    Higher natural gas prices are a negative in that (a) utilities switch to coal to save generating costs, and (b) high prices render LNG less competitive after shipping costs than that originating in Qatar and Australia and thus prejudice our LNG exports to Asia.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.