Economics

The European Central Bank is now making the economic case for decarbonisation. Not as climate policy. As monetary policy. Frank Elderson, ECB board member, argues in the Financial Times that Europe's dependence on imported fossil fuels is a structural threat to price stability (👉 https://lnkd.in/eKWWjKbh). The data is damning: energy price shocks pushed euro area inflation to 10.6% in October 2022. Every geopolitical tremor in the Middle East shows up in European energy bills. And the ECB is caught in an impossible bind: tighten to fight inflation and deepen the slowdown, ease to support growth and entrench inflation. The solution is not better forecasting models or finetuned monetary policy. It is cheaper energy. Spain shows what is possible. Wholesale electricity prices in early 2024 were approximately 40% lower than they would have been had wind and solar generation remained at 2019 levels ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/edXgxh9q). Once the infrastructure is built, the energy itself is virtually free. Volatile global commodity markets simply become less relevant. Elderson is explicit: €660 billion per year in clean energy investment sounds large. But Europe already spends nearly €400 billion annually on fossil fuel imports, money that leaves the continent and buys geopolitical vulnerability. Analysis in the UK shows that for every pound invested in sustainable energy, benefits outweigh costs by a factor of 2.2 to 4.1 ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/emEXVfiw). This is precisely what I argued in my piece for Triodos a few weeks ago: Europe's crisis response has been backwards. We keep treating energy dependence as a shock to manage rather than a structural problem to fix. (👉https://lnkd.in/ehFqA6iY) The ECB cannot decarbonise Europe. What it can do is name the conditions: keep the ETS, mobilise capital toward renewable capacity, strip out fossil fuel subsidies, and stop confusing cheap fossil fuels with affordable energy. If people need help with energy costs, target it: don't suppress the price signal that drives the transition. The cheapest energy is the energy we no longer have to import.

Wars don’t just destroy nations. They expose how fragile our systems really are. Over the past few years, every global disruption, from conflicts to pandemics to supply shocks, has shown us one thing clearly: We have built a world that is highly efficient… but dangerously dependent. - Food travels thousands of kilometres before it reaches our plates. - Energy systems rely on distant, unstable sources. - Waste is exported, outsourced, and forgotten. And the moment something breaks somewhere in the world, everyone, everywhere, feels it. Maybe the question isn’t: How do we make global systems stronger? Maybe the question is: Why are we so dependent on them in the first place? And what if our cities, towns and villages could: • Grow more of their own food • Generate more of their own energy • Manage their own waste • Create and consume locally This isn’t about isolation. It’s about resilience. Because when systems are decentralised: • Communities recover faster • Livelihoods are created locally • Environmental impact reduces • And people regain a sense of ownership This is where sustainability meets survival. Decentralised production systems are not just a climate solution. They are a risk mitigation strategy for an uncertain world. The future isn’t global vs local. It’s global and local. In fact, its hyperlocal. But the balance has clearly tipped too far. If there’s one lesson from the world we’re witnessing today, it’s this: The strongest communities are the least dependent ones. Time to build local. Time to act resilient. Time to rethink how we produce, consume, and live. What do you think? #Decentralisation #Sustainability #Resilience #ClimateAction #LocalEconomies #CircularEconomy

The latest reporting from the Financial Times highlights a point that energy analysts have been making for years: geopolitical shocks consistently strengthen the case for renewables, electrification and storage. Microsoft’s global vice-president for energy notes that oil and gas price spikes linked to the Middle East conflict reinforce the value of wind, solar and batteries in providing price stability. Once installed, renewables offer predictable cost profiles and reduce exposure to volatile global fuel markets. We saw this dynamic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe accelerated solar deployment, heat pump uptake increased in several countries, and governments revisited questions of energy security through the lens of diversification and electrification. The underlying issue remains unchanged. Fossil fuels must continuously flow through complex global supply chains. When those flows are disrupted, prices spike and economies are exposed. Renewables, by contrast, are capital intensive upfront but deliver long term domestic supply and insulation from commodity shocks. There are short term risks. Inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain constraints can slow clean energy investment. Some governments may also respond by doubling down on gas infrastructure. The policy challenge is to avoid locking in further structural vulnerability. Energy security and climate policy are not competing objectives. In a world of recurrent geopolitical instability, they are increasingly aligned.

Something VERY cool just happened in California and… it could be the future of energy.   On July 29, just as the sun was setting, California’s electric grid was reaching peak demand.   However, instead of ramping up fossil fuel resources, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and local utilities decided to lean on a network of thousands of home batteries.   More than 100,000 residential battery systems (made up primarily by Sunrun and Tesla customers) delivered about 535 megawatts of power to California’s grid right as demand peaked, visibly reducing net load (as shown in the graphic).   Now, this may not seem like a lot but 535 megawatts is enough to power more than half of the city of San Francisco and that can make all the difference when a grid is under stress.   This is what’s called a Virtual Power Plant or VPP. It’s a network of distributed energy resources that grid operators can call on in an emergency to provide greater resilience to our energy systems. Homeowners are compensated for the dispatch, grid operators are given another tool for reliability, and ratepayers are saved from instability. It’s a win-win-win.   Now, this was just a test to prepare for other need-based dispatches during heat waves in August and September. But it’ historic.   As homeowners add more solar and storage resources, the impact of these dispatch events will become even more profound and even more necessary. This was the second time this summer that VPPs have been dispatched in California and I expect to see even more as this technology improves.   Shout out to Sunrun, Tesla, and all companies who participated. Keep up the great work.

I’ve been headhunting in the CPG industry for the past decade, and I’ve never seen a post-inflation market like we’re in right now. For the past three years, customers have been capitulating to price hikes by extending their budgets. But now, they’re at a breaking point. American families, already tethering on edges of their budgets, do not have the ability or the desire to expand their budget in order to accommodate increased prices. I’m sure you’d agree with this, because my family certainly does. With grocery bills through the roof, we’d rather skip on groceries and essentials rather than paying a premium right now. A couple things led us here, starting the pandemic and the post-pandemic impact on spending and savings. Secondly, the wave of AI and tech developments that caught us off guard. So, where do the companies go now? Once the “price increase” playbook is done, CPG brands can only win in both value and volume by shifting gears. In my chats with executives, I’m sensing a change in tone. To stay competitive, they’re looking for ways to shift from the post-pandemic survival mindset to a growth-focused one that accommodates the customer as well. Rather than hiking prices, the focus is now on bringing down costs, and getting to terms with consumer’s limited budgets and increasing product choices. Layoffs aren’t the only way to bring down costs. In my view, CPG companies do have the leeway to embrace data-driven innovation and efficiency to cut costs. Here are some of the ways in which companies can use AI and ML to achieve targets in 2025 and beyond: 1/ Predicting the demand: Post-pandemic behavior is tough to predict, especially in CPG markets. With AI, the companies can now leverage real-time insights from sources like point-of-sale systems, social media, and even economic indicators to see future trends more clearly. PepsiCo, uses Tastewise to track what consumers are eating across 60+ million touchpoints and making decisions that align with local preference. 2/ Inventory management: With AI-powered predictive analytics, companies are now turning inventory management into a science. Procter & Gamble’s Supply Chain 3.0 initiative is one example of this shift. 3/ Increased personalization: Leaders are tapping into geographical intelligence to connect meaningfully with audiences. Estée Lauder has a voice-enabled makeup assistant for visually impaired customers, reaching a new market while boosting brand loyalty. Bottom line is: customers are no longer meeting brands where they’re at. It’s high time that companies start caring about customers and their shrinking bottom lines. Are you excited to see your grocery bill go down in the next few months? #CPG #AI #ML #fmcg #marketing #trending

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

Here is a strategy I will deploy in my Macro Hedge Fund. Macro hedge funds should deliver uncorrelated returns to stock and bond markets by finding dislocations all around the world and across asset classes. So here is a potential macro dislocation we are tracking. All countries in the world have followed the Fed hiking cycle in lockstep. But not all economies can handle ''higher for longer'' equally well. Or in other words: high rates for long might actually ''break something'' in some of these more vulnerable economies. So - how do we rank countries and spot macro trade opportunities following this narrative? We developed a Vulnerability Score for each country (x-axis of the chart below: right = more vulnerable). It's based on: 1️⃣ Long-term growth potential We analyze future trends in demographics and productivity to gauge which countries have the highest/lowest growth potential to handle higher interest rates 2️⃣ Private debt vulnerabilities We look at the level and rate of change of private sector debt: have households and corporates levered up over the last 10 years and to which level? High levels of private debt + high interest rate produce a strong cocktail of vulnerabilities. We also look at the share of floating rate loans and mortgages as higher interest rates pass through more quickly in that case. And finally focus on the refinancing cliffs: how early must the private sector refinance at high rates? 3️⃣ Fiscal trends The US has the exorbitant privilege of issuing the world's reserve currency, and therefore deficits and bond supply are more easily absorbed. You can't say the same about other countries. 👉 The final result is the Vulnerability Score, which is the x-axis of the chart. If we want to find out which countries are the most exposed to ''something breaking'', we need to look into that red box. These countries are not only vulnerable, but the tightening cycle (y-axis) has been very intense as well. That's a dangerous cocktail. Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, EU, and UK qualify as the most vulnerable countries out there. And GDP growth in these countries is already flirting with 0%. It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the markets' obsession with ''when will something break in the US?''. The US is not the most vulnerable country to higher interest rates: slow refinancing cliffs, a lot of long-dated fixed mortgages, private sector not ultra leveraged compared to 2007. It's going to take longer for higher rates to hit the US economy this time. But other economies are already feeling the pain. What economies are the most vulnerable in your opinion? P.S. Enjoyed this macro analysis? Follow me (Alfonso Peccatiello) so you don't miss any post & stay updated on the launch of my Macro Hedge Fund! P.P.S. FREE TRIAL to my Institutional Macro Research? Join the biggest institutional investors in the world reading it every day - send me a DM and I'll set you up!

A major report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), out today, shows that the transition to net zero emissions would mean lower energy costs globally than if we continue on our current path. Scaling up clean technologies is good for affordability, as well as for cutting emissions. Read more → https://iea.li/3X2JX90   Today’s energy system is failing to deliver affordable energy for all: many millions of people lack access to clean cooking & electricity. In advanced economies, the poorest households spend up to 25% of their income on home energy bills & transport fuel. Explore the full report → https://iea.li/3wUZMUp   Today’s energy system is also not a stable one. The energy crisis caused by Russia slashing natural gas deliveries to Europe led to consumers around the world paying 20% more on average for energy than in past years. The hardest hit were low-income households already struggling to pay bills.   It's tempting – but wrong – to conclude that clean energy transitions will make energy less affordable. IEA analysis shows clean technologies are already the most affordable options for millions of people, especially over the long term. But high upfront costs remain a key hurdle.   In recent years, more governments have enacted policies to help consumers manage these upfront costs, through instruments like grants or tax breaks. Financial support is growing, but in 2023, it reached not much more than one tenth of the value of subsidies for using fossil fuels.   More needs to be done to unlock the huge levels of investment to build a cleaner, more affordable & secure energy system. This is especially the case in emerging economies where investment is lagging behind: today, 85% of clean energy investment is in advanced economies & China.   As energy transitions advance, "cents per kilowatt hour" may well replace "dollars per barrel" as the benchmark for energy affordability. On a path to 1.5°C, the share of oil in total household energy spending falls from 50% today to 20% in 2035. Electricity’s share jumps to 55%.   We don't need to invent new technologies to move to a cleaner & more affordable energy system. IEA's new report, drawing on proven policies from countries worldwide, shows how governments can help make clean technologies more accessible to all. Read it in full, freely available, on our site → https://iea.li/3wUZMUp   And to learn more, join IEA Chief Energy Economist Tim Gould & me for the LIVE launch event from 10:30 CEST → https://iea.li/3KmAlOF

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time.