By Ven Ram, Bloomberg Markets Live reporter and strategist

If yields on German bonds have been held aloft by dominant correlations with Treasuries, there’s a new flank that has opened this month that adds impetus to the move: action that is taking place almost 6,000 miles across to the east in Japan.

 
The Bank of Japan waded into the market yet again on Tuesday to staunch surging local yields. It also vowed to offer 1t yen worth of five-year loans to commercial banks, which the entities can then use to buy debt, thereby blunting any jump in yields. It wasn’t the first time this month the central bank had to intervene to defend its yield curve control.

The BOJ has spent trillions of yen since the start of the year, just to ensure that yields don’t spiral beyond control and tighten policy settings unwittingly for fear of thwarting a return to sustained inflation. While a central bank can theoretically throw oodles of money to defend its policies, that defense isn’t endless.

There comes a point in any intervention where the tipping point is determined not by the amount of money spent in defense of a policy but by the dislocations that it spawns. When companies find that the backdrop has crumbled to such an extent that they can no longer issue new bonds and yield spreads blow out, the trillions spent in such intervention pale into insignificance and policymakers have to give in, willy-nilly.

While 10-year Treasury yields have pulled back after reaching 5%, it’s hard to say with conviction that the bond rout is over — especially given the surge in real-risk premiums. Should that selloff be rekindled, bonds in Japan will test higher and higher yields, making the BOJ’s defense of the curve more onerous by the day.

Any indications that the BOJ is prepared to tweak its curve control and/or abandon its negative-rate policy will ripple through to the other markets, reinforcing yields from across Germany to the US even higher. Which is why the BOJ’s actions — whether at next week’s policy meeting or beyond — are more important for the direction of bunds than what the European Central Bank says on Thursday.

The prospect of more crude from Venezuela and higher US crude inventories has been pressuring the physical side; and the lack of WW3 as the first signs of aid reaching Palestinians in Gaza appears to be eating away at the geopolitical risk premia baked into the flat price.

“Crude is battling the trifecta of headwinds today,” said Rebecca Babin, a senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth.

“Geopolitical risks are easing modestly, physical indicators are softening, and the US dollar is rising. Much of the recent length in the market has been driven by retail buying, which tends to be short-term, event-driven traders.”

WTI remains above its pre-Israel level; but that geopolitical premium is fading…

Concerns about the conflict spreading more broadly have eased amid growing calls within Israel to rethink a ground invasion of Gaza.

However, the possibility remains of Washington ramping up compliance checks on sanctioned Iranian oil and Tehran disrupting key shipping routes.

“A material disruption in supplies remains a tail risk that is likely being balanced by demand concerns amid relatively elevated spare capacity,” Barclays Plc analyst Amarpreet Singh said in a note to clients.

But, the International Energy Agency (IEA) believes the current level of oil storage in member states is enough to satisfy supply disruptions (despite the agency’s total inventories shedding 182.7 million barrels over the course of 2022).

Additionally, on the supply side, Bloomberg reports Russia’s oil flows are climbing steadily as Moscow’s adherence to a pact with Saudi Arabia to keep barrels off the global market shows signs of waning.

Four-week average volumes have been rising relative to the reduced shipments target since the start of September, exceeding it by about 220,000 barrels a day in the most recent period.

But, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said at the annual investment forum in Riyadh that Saudi Arabia’s strategy for managing the oil market “is working”, adding that The kingdom has to “ensure that we have a less volatile oil market that will help the global economy to grow and prosper.”

“I don’t think Exxon would merge with Pioneer for charity purposes, or for that matter Chevron would do that with Hess,” Prince Abdulaziz said.

“It is a testament by its own virtue that hydrocarbons are here to stay.”

On the demand-side, Eurozone macroeconomic data this morning was also borderline recessionary (but recent headline China and US data has surprised to the upside – whether you believe it or not).

But, Amin Nasser, chief executive officer of state producer Saudi Aramco said that oil will continue to see “significant” demand growth as economies bounce back and major consumers like China return to faster growth.

Energy consumption is continuing to grow even as economies face headwinds, Nasser said.

Finally, as we detailed here, it appears hedge funds have shifted from shorting energy stocks (to near record levels) to shorting the commodity outright.

But, as Bloomberg reports, there is one hedge fund manager who is betting the other way.

As inventories decline in the coming months, “the market will have to beg for more supply at some point,” the founder of Andurand Capital Management LLP said during a question-and-answer session at Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh.

“The Saudis will have to decide when and at what price to bring supply back,” he added.

“For me, an adjustment likely will come around $110 a barrel. So there’s room to the upside for prices.”

Andurand said Saudi policy remains the deciding factor for crude prices and sees oil demand reaching a high later this decade, then trailing off.

China’s continuing economic slowdown and turbulence in property markets have the potential to spark damaging reverberations across the global economy. In an attempt to shore up the economy and financial markets, President Xi Jinping visited the nation’s central bank for the first known time, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. 

Xi, Vice Premier He Lifeng, and other top officials visited the People’s Bank of China and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Tuesday afternoon, the people said, adding that Lifeng also visited the nation’s sovereign wealth fund.

The details of the visit were not clear but might indicate to investors potential policy signals and a centralized and unified leadership over the financial industry. Public record visits show this is the first time the most powerful Chinese leader has appeared at the PBOC since Mao Zedong. 

The visit comes as policymakers have been trying to put out the flames in the collapsing property market while unleashing stock market interventions, liquidity injections by the PBOC, and curbs on short selling to shore up the financial sector. Bloomberg noted the visit might “help ease concerns among some investors that the president had been neglecting the economy amid a purge of senior ministers and a volatile relationship with the US.” 

One person explained Xi’s visit to the foreign exchange regulator is to better understand the country’s $3 trillion reserves. And it comes one week before top leaders discuss financial policy and medium-term priorities in a closed-door economic policy meeting. 

In recent weeks, Chinese macro data has improved.

Bloomberg’s Chang Shu and David Qu noted that China’s recovery could be gaining traction, supported by stronger public investment and monetary easing. 

…and overall, China data has surprised more to the upside in recent months (admittedly against very weak expectations)…

However, China’s Credit Impulse remains negative. 

And China’s Property Stock gauge plunged to its lowest since 2009…

Xi’s visit hints that the PBOC might pull out the monetary stimulus cannon, which as refrained from using, as well as aggressive direct market interventions. 

Authored by Nicholas Anthony vi CoinTelegraph.com,

For two years, the cryptocurrency world has been waiting to see how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Put simply, this law established new reporting requirements that risked setting a de facto ban on cryptocurrency mining and exposing millions of Americans to new felony crimes. The good news is that the IRS’s nearly 300-page proposal is not quite as bad as it could have been under the law. However, that is far from saying it is good policy. 

As citizens, companies, and consultants finish crafting their comment letters ahead of the October 30 response deadline, it’s important to take a step back and recognize why businesses should not be required to report customers to the government by default.

Recalling back to 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was about building roads, bridges, and the like — it was not about cryptocurrency or financial reporting. It wasn’t until funding was desperately needed to offset spending that members of Congress slipped in two provisions to increase financial surveillance over cryptocurrency users. Their argument was that increasing surveillance would increase tax revenue, effectively accusing cryptocurrency users of tax evasion.

At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the provisions would yield around $28 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. Without a way to replace the funding, attempts to remove the controversial reporting requirements were ultimately rejected.

The $28 billion figure was questionable at the time. And less than a year later, the Biden administration released its budget, which contained a vastly different estimate. In contrast to the $28 billion estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Biden administration estimated that only $2 billion would be received over the next 10 years. And now, even that number might be an overestimation as Treasury officials acknowledged that the estimates were based on a very different market.

The IRS summary of its proposal for imposing new data-collection requirements on cryptocurrency service providers. Source: U.S. Federal Register

With cost-offsetting out the window, what is left appears to be little more than another brick in the wall of U.S. financial surveillance.

The IRS’s proposal, again, doesn’t seem as bad as it could have been since the proposal does exclude miners and some software developers for now. Still, the proposal chooses a concerning path for deciding who should be required to report customers.

The premise seems to be partly based on “whether a person is in a position to know information about the identity of a customer, rather than whether a person ordinarily would know such information.” The proposal states that this distinction is made because some platforms “have a policy of not requesting customer information or requesting only limited information [but] have the ability to obtain information about their customers by updating their protocols.” For this reason, the proposal states that the IRS expects some decentralized exchanges and selfhosted wallets may be forced to report their customers’ private information.

The IRS reports 1,726 comments received so far.

Those are rookie numbers.

Unless you want:

– Every crypto site and wallet to have your SSN, and

– Nodes, devs, governance, & LPs to be brokers in technical noncompliance,

Take 2 mins to use @LeXpunK_Army ‘s comment tool NOW https://t.co/USYAHKdxic pic.twitter.com/1d8ijWbjVG

— CryptoTaxGuy.ETH ⌐◨-◨ 🦇🔊🛡️ (@CryptoTaxGuyETH) October 17, 2023

In other words, even though businesses may have no reason to collect sensitive, personal information from customers, the baseline that the IRS is working with is whether they have the ability to do so. That may be somewhat limited given the focus is on businesses providing a service, but “the ability to collect information” seems to be little more than “collection by default.”

While concerning, this approach should not come as a surprise. The U.S. government has slowly been establishing broader financial reporting requirements with the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act, and many other laws and regulations. The provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the resulting proposal from the IRS are just the latest iteration of this expansive framework.

Yet rather than continue to expand the range and depth of financial surveillance, now should be the time to question the premise as a whole. In a country where Americans are supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment, businesses should not be forced to report their customers to the government by default. Activities like using cryptocurrency for payments, receiving over $600 on PayPal after a garage sale, or getting a paycheck from a job should not put you on a government database.

Steering away from this surveillance status quo might require fundamental changes to U.S. law, but that’s not to say doing so is a radical idea. When surveyed by the Cato Institute, 79 percent of Americans said that it is unreasonable for banks to share financial information with the government and 83 percent said that the government should need a warrant to obtain financial information.

It is those principles that should guide the discussion forward. So, while the October 30 response deadline is just around the corner, commenters should weigh both what the proposal does and doesn’t say.

Furthermore, although the present focus is very much on the IRS, let’s not forget that the responsibility to fix both the current situation and the larger financial surveillance status quo lies in the halls of Congress. At the end of the day, the IRS is doing what Congress told it to do. So, it’s Congress that needs to step in to reform the system as a whole.

A group of 16 states has formally objected to JPMorgan Chase’s $290 million class-action settlement with Jeffrey Epstein accusers, which they say can limit their ability to seek compensation for sexual abuse victims.

In a letter made public Monday in a Manhattan federal court filing, attorneys general of 16 states and Washington DC said that the language from the settlement prevents “any sovereign or government” from pursuing damages arising from Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and the late financier’s associates, Reuters reports.

“Jeffrey Epstein’s surviving victims should be fully compensated for the profound harm they have suffered,” wrote New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez. “However, as it now stands, the settlement agreement improperly seeks to release (the states’) claims for victim-specific relief.”

The AGs noted that a similar $75 million settlement between Deutsche Bank and Epstein accusers did not contain similarly offending language, and that such language without their consent would deter them from seeking damages for sex trafficking victims in general under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The attorneys general of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont also signed the letter.

JPMorgan did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for Epstein’s accusers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

The settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff. -Reuters

Last month, JPMorrgan also agreed to pay $75 million to settle related claims brought by the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein’s notorious ‘pedo island’ was located.

The bank has been given until Nov. 6 to address the states’ objection, as a hearing to consider final approval is currently scheduled for Nov. 9.

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

Below, we follow the breadcrumbs of simple math and bond market signals toward an oft-repeated pattern of how once-great nations become, well…not so great any more.

Debt Destroys Nations

Debt, once it passes the Rubicon from extreme to just plain madness, destroys nations.

Just ask the former Spanish, British or Dutch empires. Or ask the inter-war Germans. Ask the Yugoslavians of the 1990’s or ask a historian of Ancient Rome or a merchant in modern Argentina.

It’s all pretty much the same story, just different a different stage or curtain call.

Like Hemingway’s description of poverty, the process begins slowly at first, and then all at once.

Part of this process involves currency debasement needed to pay down more desperate issuance of IOUs, a process evidenced by rising rather than “transitory” inflation.

Thereafter, comes increased social unrest, and hence increased centralization from the political left or right in the name of “what’s best for us.”

Sound familiar?

Centralization—The Last, Failed Act

Centralization never works in the long run, but that has never stopped opportunists from trying.

Just look at our central bankers.

In a centralized rather than free market, the very name “central bank” should be a dead give-away as to their real role and profile.

As private central banks have been slowly increasing their hidden power and control over national markets and hence national welfare, the very notion of free price discovery in bonds, and indirectly in stocks, is now all but an extinct financial creature in the neo-feudalism which long ago replaced genuine capitalism.

How the Central Game is Played—From Temporary Prosperity to Permanent Ruin

When central banks like the Fed repress rates and print gobs and gobs of money, bonds are artificially supported, which means their prices go up and their yields are compressed.

When yields are low, rates are low, which means the cost of credit is cheap, allowing otherwise profitless names in the stock markets to borrow money and time for years of temporary prosperity—like a 600% rise in a post-08 S&P…

In short: central bank repressed rates are a profound tailwind for otherwise mediocre risk assets.

But when central banks like the Fed raise rates (ostensibly to “fight inflation”), the opposite effect happens—and things break. I mean really break.

I’ve written and spoken ad nauseum about what has broken, is breaking and will continue to break; furthermore, I’ve written and spoken at length about the quantifiable irony that Powell’s so-called war on inflation will only end in more inflation.

Yep, the ironies just abound in this world of so-called experts, which is little more than an island of misfit toys.

Postponing Pain Only Heightens It

In normal, free-market cycles devoid of central bank “support,” bonds and hence rates rise and fall naturally based on natural demand and natural supply.

Imagine that?

This leads to frequent but healthy moments of what von Mises and Schumpeter described as “constructive destruction”—i.e., a cleaning out of debt-soaked and crappy enterprises in naturally occurring recessions and naturally occurring market drawdowns.

But central banks somehow thought they could outlaw recessions by printing money out of thin air to support bonds and repress yields. You know—solve a debt crisis with more debt. Brilliant…

This was hubris at the highest level, and the stupid just became a habit and even received a fancy name to justify it—Modern Monetary Theory.

Natural Market Forces Are Stronger than Central (Bank) Forces

But the longer central banks postponed pain to win Noble Prizes and ego-lifting acclaim from the un-informed, the greater the natural pain (ticking time bomb) these central planners created as they now slowly realize that the bond market, like an ocean, is more powerful than a band of unelected market stewards.

In fact, a bunch of FOMC officials (Kashkari, Bostic, Waller et al.) are now running around like headless chickens and declaring that higher bond yields may now be more powerful than the Fed Funds Rate.

In other words, after months of hawkish chest-puffing, they are saying that perhaps enough is enough with the “higher for longer” meme…

Central bankers, it seems, are beginning to realize what informed credit market jocks have always known, viz: The bond market is stronger than any central bank.

Price Matters

That is, eventually central bankers lose control of artificial bond pricing.

Which means that eventually the great weight of sinking bonds and hence rising yields and rates becomes more powerful than central bank money printers to keep those bonds artificially “supported.”

I’ve been saying this for years despite “journalists” at the WSJ and Financial Times calling math-based realists like me “kooks.”

But recently even the fine folks at the WSJ or Financial Times (FT) are beginning to worry out loud as UST supplies far outstrip natural demand, causing bond prices to fall and yields and rates to rise fatally higher than central bankers once thought safely under their control.

We’ve warned of this for years—and this grotesque supply and demand mis-match has only risen exponentially in recent months.

America: Running Out of Takers/Suckers for Its Ever-Increasing IOUs?

The trillions in spending forecasted for year-end and into 2024 just don’t have any real money behind it, which means more IOUs will be spitting out of DC with less and less love/demand for the same.

This, of course, has been a real problem hiding in plain site for a long, long time.

As supply outpaces demand for sovereign bonds, their prices sink, their yields rise and hence interest rates—the cost of debt—becomes fatal rather than just painful.

The journalists at the FT, most of whom never sat at a trading desk, however, still have a very hard time imaging the unspeakable—i.e., a total implosion of sovereign bonds, and hence a total implosion of the financial system.

Thinking About the Unthinkable

They still see the UST as too big to fail—or to use their own words, any failure of this sacred US Sovereign bond is “unthinkable.”

Well…think again.

But at least the main-stream-financial pundits are crying that any real threat to Uncle Sam’s IOUs “would force the state to act.”

For once, I actually agree with these “journalists.”

But let’s clarify what “forcing the state to act” really means—i.e., in simple speak.

When There’s No Good Acts Left to Take

In short, this means the “state” would have to “act” by saving the bond market in particular and the global financial system in general via trillions and trillions of printed dollars to purchase otherwise unloved IOUs from Uncle Sam.

In other words, the only way to save bonds is to kill currencies.

This, by the way, is a now familiar trajectory to any one paying attention (think of the September 2019 repo crisis, the March 2020 Covid crash or the 2022 Gilt crisis in the UK) the implications of which we’ve been warning well ahead of the pundits.

Such “state action,” of course, slowly kills the USD—but as I’ve also warned for years, the last bubble to pop in every centralized, debt-soaked financial failure throughout history is always the currency.

The once exceptional USD, sadly, is no exception. It just takes longer, a lot longer, to bring down a world reserve currency.

This, by the way, is not “gold bug sensationalism” but simple history supported by simple math—two disciplines our leaders, financial journalists and even bankers either don’t grasp or do their best to ignore, cancel or dismiss.

Again, with the ironies.

Even the Media Can’t Deny the Obvious

But at least the main stream pundits are catching on. This is only because the problem of unprecedented deficits alongside rising bond yields and hence debt costs are now too obvious to ignore.

The WSJ recently wrote that “deficits finally matter.”

Hmmm. They have mattered for a long time—just saying…

Telegraphing a Weaker USD?

In the end, and as warned over and over and over (and as confirmed, it seems, even by the squawking Fed officials above), the facts and Fed-speak all point toward a talking down of the USD in favor of Uncle Sam’s broken IOU.

That is, the media is already planting the seeds for the USD’s painful endgame.

This comes as ZERO surprise, despite the Greenback’s relative status as the best horse in the global glue factory.

And, at least for now, that USD is breaking well off its prior uptrend…

This weaker USD will provide needed liquidity relief for an over-stretched UST market.

But the USD (and DXY) will have to come down much further, in my opinion, to buy sovereign bond markets needed time.

Pick Your Poison: Busted Financial System or Neutered USD?

Eventually a choice will have to be made between saving the system (of which sovereign bonds are the foundation) or sacrificing the currency.

In other words, get ready for more dollar-destroying “state action” from that non-state/private enterprise otherwise known as the Fed—all in the form of direct magical mouse-click money.

The Postponed Pivot Already Began

For over a year, this inevitable Fed pivot toward QE was delayed by back-door QE-like measures from Yellen’s Treasury Department (i.e., refilling the Treasury General Account with T-Bills) or the dual (and multi-trillion) accounting tricks of BTFP bank-bailout (by which Uncle Sam guaranteed par value return to the banks but market value losses to the suckers on Main Street…)

Or War Might Be in Order? Ask Hemingway

In fact, the only thing that could publicly justify (and partially absorb) another massive dose of 2020-like money printing (and hence currency debasement) would be a big, fat, ugly war with war-like “emergency measures” whereby our leaders can blame decades of debt-addiction on battle smoke (or COVID, Putin, and men from Mars) rather than their own bathroom mirrors.

Again, Hemingway was likely onto this trend long before the WSJ or FT:

Around and Round We Go

But with conflicts now red hot in both the Ukraine and Israel, Biden and his broken bond market are hitting an inflection point where the USA just can’t really afford more war support to its allies without thinning the USD and over-stretching its UST.

And so, folks… around and round we go in the ultimate vicious circle within which all debt-soaked nations throughout history ultimately find themselves.

That is: 1) poorly managed nations get too drunk on debt, and then 2) debase their currency to pay their debt; thereafter, 3) inflation comes, followed by 4) rising rates to fight that inflation, which in turn means 5) higher debt service costs, which means 6) more inflationary currency creation is rolled out to pay those higher rates.

Stated more simply, the USA has hit the Fiscal Dominance arc of the debt-cycle vicious circle wherein fighting inflation just creates more inflation.

The World Is Catching On…

We, of course, are not the only ones who see this.

In fact, pretty much the entire world is catching on, with the BRICS+ nations making the first steady moves (de-dollarization) as eastern and other central banks continue to stack physical gold at record-levels in preparation for the slow but steady decline (not death, nod to Brent Johnson) of the World Reserve Currency.

As I recently wrote, just like kings bring horses and canons to their borders to defend against an approaching invader, central banks are stacking physical gold to defend against a debased USD.

It’s just that obvious.

This may explain why gold continues to rise in London and NYC despite so-called “positive real rates” and a still relatively strong USD.

That is, the world, including the Shanghai gold exchange, is seeing the golden lighthouse through the smoke of burning currencies.

Are you?

Authored by FRE/RL Staff via OilPrice.com,

• The agreement signed in January 2023 between Bulgargaz and BOTAS is being scrutinized by the EU.

• Analysts had raised fears that the deal might allow a “back door” for Russian gas imports into Bulgaria.

• Bulgaria’s Energy Ministry and Bulgargaz confirmed receiving a request for information from the European Commission regarding the gas deal.

The European Commission is investigating a deal allowing Bulgaria to access gas supplies via Turkey over a possible breach of the bloc’s antitrust rules.

The agreement, signed in January 2023 between Bulgaria’s state gas company Bulgargaz and Turkey’s state supplier BOTAS, was hailed by the then-caretaker government in Bulgaria as a “historic” deal.

But analysts expressed fears that the deal was unprofitable and would damage the country’s financial interests. They also warned that it could be used as a “back door” for Russian gas imports in Bulgaria after Moscow stopped supplying gas to the EU and NATO member soon after the start of the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

On October 20, the European Commission confirmed reports that it had sent a request for information to Bulgargaz regarding the agreement.

“Our role is to ensure compliance with European regulatory standards in the internal energy market. In case of indications of noncompliance, including of a possible breach of the EU antitrust rules, the commission will not hesitate to take appropriate action,” a spokesperson for the commission told RFE/RL.

“The commission is following very closely this issue and we are in touch with the relevant stakeholders and authorities.”

Bulgaria’s Energy Ministry confirmed to state broadcaster BNT that the European Commission had requested information regarding the deal between Bulgargaz and BOTAS.

Bulgargaz also confirmed that it had received a request for information regarding natural gas deliveries, without specifying for which contracts.

“Bulgargaz is preparing and will provide the information within the deadline agreed with the European Commission,” it said in a statement.

News of the investigation was first reported by Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), a private company for market data and analysis, which said on October 19 that the commission had launched a probe into the deal.

The report said that the commission had asked Bulgargaz to provide information on the agreement with BOTAS and contracts under which “Bulgargaz may be acting as an exclusive agent or distributor for the supply of gas in Bulgaria or elsewhere in the EU.”

The report came amid concerns that the Bulgarian state company may be the only EU-based company with access to natural gas via Turkish infrastructure and its agreement with BOTAS might potentially block other companies from using the same import route.

Although it became cause for political tension in Bulgaria, there are few details about the deal as the agreement itself is confidential.

The deal was agreed in January 2023 by the caretaker government appointed by the President Rumen Radev, who hailed it as a “historic” deal that would allow Bulgaria to have access to Turkish liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and the country’s pipeline network for the next 13 years.

But analysts warned that the deal could open a “back door” for Russian gas imports after Moscow stopped supplying gas to Bulgaria in April 2022.

A new government in Bulgaria that was formed following April general elections also criticized the agreement.

Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov said that the deal was “nontransparent and unprofitable,” and Energy Minister Rumen Radev, who shares the same name as the president although the two are not related, said that it could cost billions without resulting in any benefit.

“The Turkish company BOTAS gets access to the Bulgarian and European markets without the opposite being true,” he said in August.

Bulgaria has relied mainly on natural gas supplies from Azerbaijan and LNG terminals in Greece and Turkey since Russia stopped supplying gas after Sofia refused to pay in rubles — a condition imposed on “unfriendly countries” as a way to sidestep Western financial sanctions against Russia’s central bank.

Switzerland’s right-wing People’s Party (SVP), known by its German acronym, has secured one of its most significant electoral wins in recent years – garnering 28.6% of the votes in the national elections, marking a notable increase from their 25.6% performance four years ago. This triumph exceeded expectations set by opinion polls and came close to their record-high of 29.4% achieved in 2015.

The SVP has been Switzerland’s most popular political party for approximately two decades, predominantly focusing on domestic concerns – particularly immigration and the economy. A central pillar of their agenda is to limit Switzerland’s population to 10 million people, citing concerns over strained infrastructure and housing shortages.

“The worry about an explosion of the population is big,” said Zurich-based SVP lawmaker Thomas Matter, who hopes that conservative parties will collaborate on immigration issues with the party, Bloomberg reports.

SVP also promotes the preservation of Switzerland’s traditional policy of neutrality – even in the face of calls for a more robust response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, they aim to cap the costs associated with transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

Not just Switzerland

The rise of conserve nationalism across Europe is notable, as similar movements have gained ground across the region. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has experienced increased support in regional elections, while Italy‘s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni continues to enjoy popularity in the polls after a year in office. Austria is witnessing the anti-immigrant Freedom Party leading the charge for the 2024 elections.

Swiss voter insecurity wasn’t helped by the collapse of Credit Suisse and its subsequent takeover by UBS Group AG in March – and event which cast a shadow over the stability of the Swiss banking system.

Nationally, the Social Democrats emerged as a distant second to the SVP, with the Center Alliance narrowly surpassing the pro-business Free Democrats for third place. Switzerland’s two Green parties experienced a reversal in their gains made in 2019, according to official results.

That said, despite the election results, a shift in Switzerland’s executive branch is unlikely. The country’s seven-seat government is not formed by a coalition or an outright majority, but rather a compact between the largest parties. Lawmakers will elect ministers on December 13, and the centrists have already announced that they won’t challenge sitting members.

The SVP’s electoral victory translates into an additional nine seats in the 200-member lower house, raising their total to 62 seats.

The surge of conservatism in Switzerland is further underscored by the success of the MCG alliance in Geneva. This local populist group campaigned for preferential treatment of Swiss workers over their French counterparts while promoting left-wing social policies.

This electoral victory for the SVP could potentially intensify polarization within Swiss politics, as some argue that the party should focus on more radical positions instead of seeking compromises, which have long been a hallmark of Swiss politics.

Georg Lutz, a professor of political science at Lausanne University, observed, “If the outlier parties score with a campaign like this, then there’s no incentive to collaborate.”

However, it’s important to note that the outcome of parliamentary elections in Switzerland holds less weight in determining future policy compared to other countries. The Swiss system regularly holds initiatives and referendums, providing voters with a direct say on a wide range of issues, from corporate taxes to immigration.

Finally, thanks to the frequency of votes held in Switzerland, the country has experienced a steady decline in voter turnout. While the 46.6% turnout on Sunday was higher than in 2019, it’s still one of the lowest in Europe.

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s policy changes, including delays in transitioning to electric vehicles and restrictions on solar energy, have raised concerns about the UK’s commitment to climate action.

• Environmental groups argue that the government’s rollbacks could lead to higher long-term costs and threaten the UK’s global leadership in combating climate change.

• While foreign energy imports may offer a green energy source, the hurdles placed on domestic renewable energy development could impact energy costs and hinder the UK’s climate commitments.

The Conservative government in the U.K. has been accused of backtracking on several of its climate pledges over the last few months and the solar energy industry is the latest to be affected. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is following in his predecessor’s footsteps by imposing restrictions on new solar energy developments in the U.K., which could lead the country to rely on foreign energy imports to meet its growing demand for renewable energy and ensure its energy security. 

In September, Sunak confirmed the massive rollback of several of the U.K.’s climate policies during a speech. This came after a government plan on updated climate action was leaked.

The Conservative government passed a law in 2019 aimed at achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Sunak assures the public that this goal has not changed, but the path to achieving it has. He stated that the government will “ease the transition to electric vehicles,” shifting the date for a ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. He also said that there would be “more time to transition to heat pumps,” meaning a delay in the phasing out of gas boilers. He also ruled out the introduction of a tax aimed at discouraging flying and announced that plans for new recycling schemes would be reconsidered. 

Climate scientists and environmental experts said in response to Sunak’s speech that the move would cost consumers more in the long term and it could threaten the U.K.’s global leadership on climate change. Environmental groups are likely to challenge the decision to water down climate pledges in court on the grounds that the government has a legal obligation to present in detail how it aims to achieve its 2050 net-zero target, with clear carbon budgets for different sectors. In response to the criticism, Sunak said that delays in enacting green pledges could help save U.K. households thousands of pounds. However, this appears to be overlooking the potential effects of climate change due to the delay. 

The latest clean energy source under attack by the Conservative government is solar power. This month, Sunak announced plans to restrict the installation of solar panels on U.K. farmland. Plans to block solar energy projects were originally proposed under Liz Truss’s leadership, and media sources suggest that Sunak and the environment secretary Thérèse Coffey have revived plans for the restriction on the rollout of solar panels. 

Greg Smith, the MP for Buckingham, who has long been opposed to installing solar panels on farmland, drafted the amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He stated, “This is a clear, straightforward protection that planning authorities up and down the land can use to say this development on this farmland isn’t going to hit our food security in this area, or this one over here is and therefore use that as a good reason to turn down applications.” Coffey said that the revised NPPF will come into action later this year. Environmental experts believe that increasing the U.K.’s solar capacity will help reduce the effects of climate change, which would otherwise be hugely detrimental to U.K. farming. Meanwhile, many farmers believe that food and energy security can go hand in hand through the correct use of farmland. 

Alethea Warrington, senior campaigner at climate charity Possible, explained: “The idea that solar power could interfere with the UK’s food security is utterly detached from reality. Solar power generated over 8 percent of all our electricity this spring, but takes up less land than golf courses. This is part of an abysmal streak of energy policy from the government, including failing to properly unblock onshore wind, failing to get any new offshore wind, and trying to press ahead with incredibly dangerous new oil drilling.”

Although the U.K. is one of the world leaders in wind production, it is falling behind in its plans to develop its solar energy capacity. In September, an article published in the Daily Telegraph stated that there were plans for the U.K. to import electricity from solar farms and wind turbines in Egypt. This will require the installation of subsea cables connecting Egypt to Europe. Rystad, the company in charge of the project, stated “European demand for low-carbon electricity is expected to grow substantially over the next three years. Building infrastructure in Europe may never be sufficient so we need to look at other sources.” 

While foreign energy sources could provide the green energy the U.K. needs to support a green transition, it is difficult to overlook the hurdles that Sunak is putting in place to develop home-grown clean energy sources. The solar energy industry is just the latest renewable energy sector to be hit with restrictions by the conservative government, a move which is expected to drive a longer-term reliance on fossil fuels, increase energy costs and lead to the U.K. failing on its climate pledges.