Why No One Wants to Pay for the Green Transition
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,638,545 (+0.82%)       Melbourne $1,023,679 (+1.75%)       Brisbane $1,038,818 (+0.18%)       Adelaide $951,068 (+0.69%)       Perth $923,390 (-0.21%)       Hobart $759,192 (-0.42%)       Darwin $769,355 (-0.10%)       Canberra $964,485 (-0.83%)       National $1,074,245 (+0.50%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $777,604 (+1.00%)       Melbourne $478,404 (+0.18%)       Brisbane $668,589 (+0.89%)       Adelaide $498,047 (-0.58%)       Perth $519,492 (+1.90%)       Hobart $528,197 (-0.03%)       Darwin $378,865 (-1.17%)       Canberra $494,950 (+0.08%)       National $567,655 (+0.60%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 11,855 (+190)       Melbourne 14,114 (-991)       Brisbane 8,271 (+242)       Adelaide 2,797 (+147)       Perth 7,549 (+147)       Hobart 1,213 (+7)       Darwin 181 (-4)       Canberra 1,228 (+25)       National 47,208 (-237)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,100 (+118)       Melbourne 6,842 (-31)       Brisbane 1,703 (+24)       Adelaide 418 (+32)       Perth 1,696 (+19)       Hobart 245 (+15)       Darwin 279 (+8)       Canberra 1,140 (-4)       National 21,423 (+181)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $650 ($0)       Adelaide $620 ($0)       Perth $695 (-$5)       Hobart $555 (-$15)       Darwin $780 (+$20)       Canberra $700 ($0)       National $684 (+$1)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 ($0)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $650 (+$5)       Adelaide $525 (+$25)       Perth $650 ($0)       Hobart $480 (-$13)       Darwin $570 (+$5)       Canberra $570 (-$10)       National $610 (+$1)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,415 (-92)       Melbourne 8,122 (-49)       Brisbane 4,023 (-50)       Adelaide 1,424 (-45)       Perth 2,128 (-99)       Hobart 232 (+21)       Darwin 103 (-17)       Canberra 559 (-41)       National 23,006 (-372)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,115 (-492)       Melbourne 6,656 (-238)       Brisbane 2,047 (-142)       Adelaide 349 (-56)       Perth 639 (-48)       Hobart 107 (+5)       Darwin 178 (-21)       Canberra 550 (-3)       National 19,641 (-995)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.54% (↓)       Melbourne 3.00% (↓)       Brisbane 3.25% (↓)       Adelaide 3.39% (↓)       Perth 3.91% (↓)       Hobart 3.80% (↓)     Darwin 5.27% (↑)      Canberra 3.77% (↑)        National 3.31% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.02% (↓)       Melbourne 6.52% (↓)       Brisbane 5.06% (↓)     Adelaide 5.48% (↑)        Perth 6.51% (↓)       Hobart 4.73% (↓)     Darwin 7.82% (↑)        Canberra 5.99% (↓)       National 5.58% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.0% (↑)      Melbourne 1.9% (↑)      Brisbane 1.4% (↑)      Adelaide 1.3% (↑)      Perth 1.2% (↑)      Hobart 1.0% (↑)      Darwin 1.6% (↑)      Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National 1.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.4% (↑)      Melbourne 3.8% (↑)      Brisbane 2.0% (↑)      Adelaide 1.1% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.4% (↑)      Darwin 2.8% (↑)      Canberra 2.9% (↑)      National 2.2% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 29.5 (↓)       Melbourne 31.6 (↓)       Brisbane 31.5 (↓)       Adelaide 26.2 (↓)       Perth 41.1 (↓)       Hobart 33.2 (↓)       Darwin 24.8 (↓)       Canberra 32.7 (↓)       National 31.3 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 25.4 (↓)       Melbourne 31.6 (↓)       Brisbane 27.4 (↓)       Adelaide 23.7 (↓)       Perth 41.0 (↓)       Hobart 26.8 (↓)       Darwin 45.2 (↓)       Canberra 43.3 (↓)       National 33.0 (↓)           
Share Button

Why No One Wants to Pay for the Green Transition

Investors and consumers balk at costs of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, highlighting painful economics of climate mitigation

By GREG IP
Sat, Dec 2, 2023 7:00amGrey Clock 4 min

In the past few years, Washington and Wall Street started fantasising that the transition to net-zero carbon emissions could be an economic bonanza. “When I think climate change, I think jobs,” President Biden said. When Wall Street heard green energy, it saw profits. As Ford Motor launched an electric Mustang and pickup truck, its market value topped $100 billion for the first time.

This year the fantasy ended. With electric vehicle demand falling short of expectations, manufacturers are dialling back production and buying back stock instead. Offshore wind developers have canceled projects. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has fallen 30% this year. Ford’s market cap is down to $42 billion.

This doesn’t mean the transition to net zero is over. Officials meeting this week at the United Nations climate conference are just as worried about climate change. Renewable energy continues to expand. In the very long run, it is still the case that economic welfare will be higher with less global warming.

But the economics of getting to net zero remain, fundamentally, dismal: Someone has to pay for it, and shareholders and consumers decided this year it wouldn’t be them.

Politicians and the public tend to think all investment is good for growth, an error that leads to all sorts of muddled thinking about climate.

Technological transformations are positive supply shocks: a new, more efficient technology comes along, and investment naturally gravitates toward this new technology because it is profitable.

By contrast, the green transition is driven by public policy. It is “a negative supply shock, with an accompanying need to finance investments whose profitability cannot be taken for granted,” French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry wrote in a report commissioned by the French prime minister and released in English in November. “By putting a price—financial or implicit—on a free resource (the climate), the transition increases production costs, with no guarantee that the reduction in energy costs will eventually offset them, while the investments it calls for do not increase productive capacity but must nevertheless be financed.”

Pisani-Ferry, who is affiliated with the Bruegel think tank in Europe and the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, is an uncommonly clear thinker on this issue.

He notes the transition involves hefty capital spending today to replace fossil-fuel consumption in the future. Pisani-Ferry estimates a middle-class French family would spend 44% of annual disposable income for a heat pump, and 120% for an electric car. These investments boost demand, but don’t leave families better off since they simply do the same thing as what they replace. And if taxes rise to pay for these investments, families will be worse off, financially.

“It would take an incredible act of blindness to fail to recognise that climate change is happening, that it is—and will increasingly become—severely damaging,” he writes. “It would also be incredibly flippant to claim that this urgent and imperative action will have no economic cost by 2030.”

The most efficient way to redirect consumption and investment from fossil fuels to zero-emissions energy is a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system. Europe has adopted such a system plus ever more stringent goals, especially after Russia cut off natural-gas supplies following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But as the cost has grown, so has public discontent, from France’s “yellow vest” protests in 2018 to last week’s first-place finish in Dutch elections by the far-right Freedom Party, which wants to ditch all climate regulations.

U.S. leaders have rejected any federal tax or fee on carbon. Biden’s solution is to not ask consumers to pay for the green transition; his Inflation Reduction Act pours, by some estimates, roughly $1 trillion into electric vehicles, renewable energy, hydrogen and other zero-emissions technology.

Subsidies can play a vital role by giving green energy time to scale up and innovate until it is competitive with fossil fuels. But the IRA has been undermined by extraneous conditions such as made-in-America requirements, and by green tech inflation—a byproduct of the IRA itself, which helped fuel demand.

Finally, Biden’s investment agenda was designed for the pre pandemic era when low interest rates flattered the financial profile of renewable energy investment and federal budget deficits were less likely to crowd out private investment. Those assumptions no longer apply.

For years, the cost of wind and solar plummeted, but since 2021 they have risen, according to investment bank Lazard. Interest rates are an important factor, which Lazard estimates affect offshore wind and solar more than natural gas.

Many developers can no longer economically supply power at the rates previously agreed to. Denmark’s Orsted, the world’s largest wind developer, took a $4 billion charge in early November for pulling out of two projects off New Jersey. The company today is worth 75% less than in early 2021.

ClearView Energy Partners estimates about 30% of state-contracted offshore wind capacity has been canceled, and another 25% may be rebid. ClearView analyst Timothy Fox noted lawmakers often mandate increased renewables, but utility regulators must approve the contracts, and one of their primary considerations is cost to ratepayers.

“I am an unapologetic economic regulator,” Diane Burman, a member of the New York state Public Service Commission, said in October as the commission refused to pay wind developers more. De carbonisation and grid improvement must proceed “with costs in mind.”

The financial appeal of EVs has similarly faded. Tesla proved making them can be profitable, but so far it looks like an outlier. Tesla captured the lion’s share of early adopters—drivers willing to put up with the cost and recharging hassle of an EV in return for performance and green credentials. For most drivers, the trade off still doesn’t work—even with subsidies.

True, the IRA has spurred a boom in EV and battery factories. But a successful green transition requires that those factories be profitable, and Detroit’s automakers are still losing money on every EV they sell.

EVs should eventually require less labor and thus be cheaper to build than gasoline-powered vehicles. But auto workers are no more willing to pay for the green transition than consumers or investors. In its recent strike, the United Auto Workers extracted commitments that make it even harder for Detroit to make money on EVs.

In a sobering report this week, Morgan Stanley auto analysts estimated the average non financial company in the S&P 500 spends its market cap in capital expenditure and research and development in about 50 years. GM and Ford spend theirs in 1.9 and 2.6 years, respectively. “This cannot continue, in our view.”

The green transition remains critical, but its path will be fraught until someone agrees to pay for it.



MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Money
Tech Giants Double Down on Their Massive AI Spending
By NATE RATTNER AND JASON DEAN 07/02/2025
Money
OpenAI in Talks for Huge Investment Round Valuing It Up to $300 Billion
By BERBER JIN and DEEPA SEETHARAMAN 31/01/2025
Money
DeepSeek Deep Sixes the Stock Market. How Far the S&P 500 Could Fall
By PAUL R. LA MONICA 28/01/2025
Tech Giants Double Down on Their Massive AI Spending

Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Meta pour billions into artificial intelligence, undeterred by DeepSeek’s rise

By NATE RATTNER AND JASON DEAN
Fri, Feb 7, 2025 3 min

Tech giants projected tens of billions of dollars in increased investment this year and sent a stark message about their plans for AI: We’re just getting started.

The four biggest spenders on the data centers that power artificial-intelligence systems all said in recent days that they would jack up investments further in 2025 after record outlays last year. Microsoft , Google and Meta Platforms have projected combined capital expenditures of at least $215 billion for their current fiscal years, an annual increase of more than 45%.

Amazon.com didn’t provide a full-year estimate but indicated on Thursday that total capex across its businesses is on course to grow to more than $100 billion, and said most of the increase will be for AI.

Their comments in recent quarterly earnings reports showed the AI arms race is still gaining momentum despite investor anxiety over the impact of China’s DeepSeek and whether these big U.S. companies will sufficiently profit from their unprecedented spending spree.

Investors have been especially shaken that DeepSeek replicated much of the capability of leading American AI systems despite spending less money and using fewer and less-powerful chips, according to its Chinese developer. Leaders of the U.S. companies were unbowed , touting advances in their own technology and arguing that lower costs will make AI more affordable and grow the demand for their cloud computing services, which AI needs to operate.

“We think virtually every application that we know of today is going to be reinvented with AI inside of it,” Amazon Chief Executive Andy Jassy said on Thursday’s earnings call.

Here is a breakdown of each company’s plans:

Amazon said a measure of its capex that includes leased equipment rose to a record of about $26 billion in the final quarter of 2024 , driven by spending in its cloud-computing division on equipment for data centers that host AI applications. Executives projected it would maintain the fourth-quarter spending volume in 2025, meaning an annual total of more than $100 billion by that measure.

The company—which gets most of its revenue from e-commerce and most of its profit from cloud computing—also projected overall sales for the current quarter that missed analysts’ expectations. Its shares slid about 4% in after-hours trading Thursday. The stock rose more than 40% in 2024 and was up nearly 9% this year before its earnings report.

Jassy said AI has the potential to propel historic change and that Amazon wants to be a leader of that progress.

“AI represents for sure the biggest opportunity since cloud and probably the biggest technology shift and opportunity in business since the internet,” Jassy said.

Google shares are down about 7% since its earnings report Tuesday, which showed disappointing growth in its cloud-computing business. Still, parent-company Alphabet said it is accelerating investments in AI data centers as part of a surge in capital expenditures this year to about $75 billion, from $52.5 billion in 2024. The spending will go to infrastructure both for Google’s own use and for cloud-computing clients.

“I think part of the reason we are so excited about the AI opportunity is we know we can drive extraordinary use cases because the cost of actually using it is going to keep coming down,” said CEO Sundar Pichai .

AI is “as big as it comes, and that’s why you’re seeing us invest to meet that moment,” he said.

Microsoft has said it plans to spend $80 billion on AI data centers in the fiscal year ending in June, and that spending would grow further next year , albeit at a slower pace.

Chief Executive Satya Nadella said AI will become much more extensively used , which he said is good news. “As AI becomes more efficient and accessible, we will see exponentially more demand,” Nadella said.

Growth for Microsoft’s cloud-computing business in the latest quarter also disappointed investors, leaving its stock down about 6% since its earnings report last week.

Meta, too, outlined a sizable increase in its investments driven by AI, including $60 billion to $65 billion in planned capital expenditures this year, roughly 70% higher than analysts had projected. Shares in Meta are up about 5% since its earnings report last week.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said investing vast sums will enable it to adjust the technology as AI advances.

“That’s generally an advantage that we’re now going to be able to provide a higher quality of service than others who don’t necessarily have the business model to support it on a sustainable basis,” he said.

MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Treasury Wine Fails to Find Buyers for Its Budget Brands
By STUART CONDIE 13/02/2025
Money
Tech Giants Double Down on Their Massive AI Spending
By NATE RATTNER AND JASON DEAN 07/02/2025
Lifestyle
Hidden Hinterland Gem: Byron Bay Estate with Historic Ties
By Kirsten Craze 07/02/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop