The inflation scare that has become a major theme in markets is gaining fresh momentum from the climate change battle and the huge economic transformation under way.
As governments recognize the importance of climate action and push every corner of the economy to decarbonize, industries from glass to steel to autos are being left with little choice but to change how they make products and, ultimately, what they sell.
The technical hurdles and investment involved mean it is going to cost much more. Just two examples: Making glass without poisoning the planet costs 20 percent more, while cleaner steel is up to 30 percent more expensive.
The potential price hit from the green revolution is adding to the arguments about the inflation outlook that are already brewing as economies reopen from COVID-19 lockdowns and some commodity prices surge to record levels.
BlackRock Inc, the world’s largest asset manager, and the Bank of England put the issue in the spotlight this month, while others have also cited environmental demands as one reason the current inflation pickup is unlikely to be transitory.
Hitting net-zero targets requires investment of US$5 trillion a year in energy systems by the end of the decade, more than double the average in the past five years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has said.
There is another piece to the puzzle. As green-minded investors tell oil companies to scale back drilling, the resulting supply squeeze is seen pushing up oil prices before economies are anywhere near phasing out fossil fuels.
“If I had to put my money on a single factor that was going to push up costs in the years to come, I would say it was the environmental emphasis and, in particular, the drive towards net zero,” said Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics Ltd and author of the 1996 book The Death of Inflation. “I think this is going to lead to a whole series of costs and price increases across the economy.”
Massive spending on new plants, technologies and processes could all feed through to prices.
Manufacturing low-carbon glass adds about 20 percent to the cost, according to Nippon Sheet Glass Co, which supplied the glazed exterior of The Shard, London’s tallest building.
That is a squeeze companies have to either swallow or pass on to customers.
Households are also going to have to spend. In the UK, the government is drawing up plans to replace conventional gas boilers with more environmentally friendly — and more expensive — heating systems.
In addition to investment costs, the transition is fueling a huge demand for key raw materials. The price of copper for example, vital for power grids and wiring for wind turbines, is up more than 60 percent in the past year.
Steel is another case in point. The metal, used in everything from ball bearings to bridges, is very carbon intensive to produce, normally relying on coal-fired blast furnaces. Greener production routes that use hydrogen or biomass exist, but are far more expensive.
That situation could worsen, with the IEA warning last month of a “looming mismatch” between “climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals” such as copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt.
“If our solution is entirely just to get a green world, we’re going to have much higher inflation, because we do not have the technology to do all this, yet,” BlackRock chief executive officer Larry Fink said this month. “That’s going to be a big policy issue going forward.”
How to shift the balance between sources of energy — new versus old, clean versus dirty — is likely to play a huge role in how the transition affects growth and inflation. Major oil and gas producers are coming under increasing pressure from shareholders to cut back on drilling to make credible net zero plans, and lower supplies could push up prices for customers. The inflation hit would be exacerbated if alternative renewable power sources — and the crucial infrastructure to get the power they produce into homes and businesses — are not ready to pick up all the slack.
Government carbon pricing policy is another factor in the equation. Under Europe’s Emissions Trading System, companies either pay to pollute, a cost that has doubled in the past year, or invest in new technology to avoid producing carbon.
To protect industries from becoming uncompetitive as a side effect of stricter climate policies, Europe now wants to impose a carbon border tax, or penalty for bringing emissions embedded in goods such as steel or cement into the bloc.
Yet even if businesses and consumers have to contend with a price hump as part of the epic energy transformation, it is unlikely to be permanent. As governments offer incentives, more renewables are used and people change habits, a virtuous circle of production and demand should ultimately improve returns on green investment and reduce costs.
In the case of electric vehicles, BloombergNEF has estimated that they would reach price parity with internal combustion vehicles starting in 2025.
The initial increase in costs to consumers might also be capped as commodities account for only a fraction of the final price of goods.
A study by Boston Consulting Group and the World Economic Forum found that decarbonization would add 1 to 4 percent to end-consumer costs in the medium term.
Falling prices are already being seen in some areas, such as solar power, which is down more than 90 percent in the past decade.
Yet while solar has become one of the cheapest forms of electricity, there is a large upfront cost to installing panels in homes. That has not deterred state lawmakers the US from making them a key component in the climate change fight. California, for example, requires most newly built homes to include solar systems.
Other US states might follow California’s lead, and some parts of Germany are soon to require panels on non-residential buildings. Still, the climate benefits cannot be ignored, plus the long-term savings on utility bills would eventually offset the initial expense.
“In the medium term, it’s still deflationary and that’s where people’s focus should be,” said Edward Lees, who comanages BNP Paribas Asset Management’s Energy Transition fund. “The wind doesn’t charge you anything, the sun doesn’t charge you anything.”
Central bankers are paying close attention given the effects of climate change and the transition to cleaner energy on inflation, output, jobs and financial stability.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said this month that the green shift needs to start as early as possible to avoid a disorderly move later that would be more damaging, where carbon pricing jumps suddenly, companies have to scrap some assets, bottlenecks intensify and output takes a hit.
The Bank of England estimates inflation in that scenario would accelerate to more than 4 percent, which compares with an average of 2 percent this century.
Doing nothing also carries huge economic risks. Climate scientists have warned of increased frequency of extreme weather conditions, which can disrupt food supplies and damage buildings and infrastructure, all with a fallout on the broader economy.
Analysis from the Network for Greening the Financial System, a group of more than 90 central banks, estimates a global GDP hit of up to 13 percent by the end of the century if the green transition fails, even before accounting for damage from severe weather events.
Amid such warnings, there is more to consider than costs, said Rain Newton-Smith, chief economist at the Confederation of British Industry lobby group.
“That’s just looking at that in isolation and not thinking about the huge wider benefits through better air quality, through helping to tackle climate change by reducing carbon emissions,” she said.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS