Haven’t verified this, but someone told me this is the single biggest down move in the EUA futures market ever:
What does it mean?
Probably that our priorities are shifting. Rapidly. National security-backed fiat money will be taking over from moral money in the near future (and hopefully we won’t be looking to 16-year old girls for policy guidance).
Merryn Sommerset Webb at Moneyweek has been onto this for ages. I said a while ago that ESG investors would have to start thinking in terms of ESGA (Environmental, Social, Governance and Ally). But really, now I think about it, it’s probably better to say ASG = Ally, Social, Governance.
The long and short of it is that by mothballing nuclear, shutting down gas storage, under investing in shale and other fossil fuel developments we handed ourselves the mother of all security vulnerabilities.
That’s not to say in the longer term we shouldn’t strive to shift our dependence on oil over entirely to renewables. But in the interim, we just weren’t ready.
Net zero policy was a bad idea. Some might even say it was sabotage.
In Europe anticipated more renewables (more quickly), less russian gas consumption, less russian coal consumption -> less need for EUAs. As this won’t work quickly, add a dose of “maybe we postpone mothballing nuclear”.
What are you thinking? Net Zero a mistake? Net Zero is all about fuel security. If we’ve learned anything this week is that autocrat controlled gas lines are not to be trusted. More renewables, and quicker. The EU was stupid to think that gas should be in it’s sustainable finance economy. But bring on the nuclear, bring on the wind, solar and tidal
This is a super naive view. If you think current technology can handle our fuel needs you’re mad. Not least because to transition you need cheap fossil fuels. What do you think powers the solar and wind manufacturing sites? The plan was always to use gas as a transition fuel. This was logical and led to a reduction in overall carbon emissions. Net zero has just shot us in the foot on all fronts.