Just Do It? Is Democracy Ending? The Oslo Accords And Two Men's Arrogance. Is Fossil Energy Dead As An Investment?

 

My dear friend and fellow memo reader comments about my McCain posting: "If half that stuff about McCain is true, he was no angel.

I love the way the left is praising him now that he’s dead, when they vilified him and smeared him as a racist when he ran for president.

Just like they did Reagan after he was no longer a threat to them. A---"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You decide. (See 1 below.)

And:

Payoff (See 1a below. )
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Worth re-posting in view of Woodward's allegations. (See 2 below.)

From my perspective, several critical things that make ideologues and the mass media miss their predictions  are:

a) they are totally out of touch with the "common man's" thought process and feelings.

b) even more importantly, they fail to link the  impact a former president has on shaping what we seek in the next president.  In other words, GW set the stage for Obama as Obama did for Trump.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I  always opposed  The "Oslo Accords" because I thought they were the act of two headstrong, well intentioned, men (Clinton and Rabin) who thought they could control Arafat and change his antipathy towards Israel.  Rabin and Clinton failed to see the downside of what they pursued. They  got caught up in what was an ego driven activity which  I constantly refer to as a belief one can drink their  own bathwater.

Hundreds paid the ultimate  price for their arrogant  belief they could bring about peace through a handshake. (See 3 below.)

From an investment standpoint is the recommendation that one dispose of energy stocks predicated on  a similar mistaken premise akin to what motivated the Oslo Accords?

Though cleaner fuels are coming, timing and un-depreciated infrastructure will determine the pace of replacement and therefore, the level of one's return.  I suspect  traditional energy sources will be around for many decades. as the cost of discovery and development declines

Because Al Gore hawks it does not make it so.(See 3a below.)

Also, as America becomes an  increasingly service economy, driven by technological advancements, many jobs no longer pay what they once did. (See 3b below.)

Change is constant however, the pace at which it occurs varies sharply and our inability to adopt and embrace can be very disrupting.

My next report on Mona Charen's: "Sex Matters." might prove an eye opener. It confirmed some of my deepest suspicions. Stay tuned.

Once again a somewhat mistakenly premised  theory took some unpredictable turns which have caused disaster and unintended grief.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++

1) Perspective – This Is What The Beginning Of The End Of Democracy Looks Like
By Joshua Muravchik

Freedom diminished around the world in 2018 for the 12th consecutive year, according to Freedom House. These years saw the devastating failure of the “Arab Spring” and the sad turn of Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union back to dictatorship. Russia, China and Iran are increasingly assertive in their regions.

Illiberal populist parties — nearly four dozen of various stripes — are on the rise in Europe in parallel with a new angry nationalism in the United States. Taken together, it’s hard not to at least contemplate whether democracy might be an endangered species.

To Americans, democracy is a given. But to the rest of the world, it’s a fairly recent invention — a creature of the past two centuries. This is a relatively narrow slice of recorded history, briefer than the Ming or Song dynasties in China or various other dynasties elsewhere that appear as mere blips in historical memory. Maybe this democratic moment is just another phase.

The original experiments with democracy in ancient Greece and Rome disappeared, and this form of government meaningfully returned only two millennia later with the birth of the American republic. Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the Civil War would determine whether “any nation so conceived … can long endure.” In the 20th century, Communism, Nazism and fascism presented powerful challenges to the democratic world not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of ideas, offering models for how societies should be organized that many believed were superior to democracy.

With the serial defeat of those enemies, democracy’s ascent seemed assured. Francis Fukuyama said the West’s victory in the Cold War amounted to “the end of history,” meaning that debate about the best form of society was resolved for all time. All countries that had not already adopted liberal democracy were nonetheless headed in that direction, he wrote.

Another political scientist, Samuel Huntington, took another approach in “The Third Wave.” He argued that democracy did not roll steadily forward, but rose and fell in waves. The first wave had begun in the United States when it was a young country, crested at the conclusion of World War I with the transformation of empires in Europe into independent, democratic states, and then crashed in the 1920s as most of those states devolved into dictatorships. The second wave began after World War II, with the liberation of Asian and African colonies, but it too crashed as these newborn democracies fell, one after another, under strongman rule. The third wave began in 1974, with the democratization of Portugal followed by other countries in Southern Europe, then Latin America, then, most dramatically, the Soviet bloc. This wave had not yet crested when Huntington wrote, but it did so early in the 21st century, when Freedom House found that nearly two-thirds of the world’s countries were “electoral democracies” while a record 45 percent fulfilled the group’s more demanding criteria for being labeled a “free country.”

Since then, democracy and freedom have been in gradual recession. The falloff has been modest, but a constellation of recent events and trends suggests that an all-out crash could follow. Each of the first two crashes left the world with a radically reduced number of democratic states. How many democracies might disappear and how many might remain after a third crash? Since the crest of the third wave was higher than the first two, more might be left intact, but by the same token, a crash from this high crest might prove to be all the more momentous, darkening the lives of hundreds of millions of people and reshaping international relations and America’s place in the world.

What makes this even seem possible? First, the new century has witnessed some major disappointments for democrats. The “Arab Spring” of 2011 promised for a moment to bring a large measure of democracy to the region that has been most resistant to it. But only one small country, Tunisia, emerged more democratic, while a handful moved in the opposite direction, either because wary regimes (in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and others) tightened the screws or because countries collapsed into warring military factions (as in Syria, Libya and Yemen). Another bitter disappointment has been the former Soviet Union, which devolved into 15 independent states in 1991, each holding elections and adopting democratic institutions. Today, only six remain as democracies, of which half are none too stable; the rest are once again ruled by dictators, including some of the world’s most repressive ones.

Elsewhere, democratic reverses have occurred in pivotal countries that seem likely to influence others around them. Turkey, for example, has been for decades a leading example of democracy in the Muslim world, especially in its Middle Eastern core, notwithstanding the imperfections of its democratic institutions. Now, the grasp of Recep Tayyip Erdogan for dictatorial power will convince many that democracy is incompatible with Islam. In Hungary, the peeling away of freedoms is inspiring imitation in the other countries of the former Eastern bloc. Unless reversed, recent moves by the government of Viktor Orban to close the Central European University in Budapest — since its founding in 1991 a symbol of democratic transition and Western-style academic study — are likely to have a chilling effect in the region. Hugo Chávez destroyed democracy in Venezuela and inspired imitators, who have weakened, albeit not eliminated, democracy in several other Latin nations. Other mercurial strongmen who have come to power through elections, in the Philippines and South Africa, could wield a similar impact within their regions as well as their own countries.

Influence is sometimes exerted more forcefully than merely by setting an example. Three aggressive dictatorships — Russia, China and Iran — are exercising increasing sway over the areas around them.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin, having stamped out the last embers of post-Communist democratization and imposed one-man rule, has invaded two of the former republics of the Soviet Union — Georgia and Ukraine — and uses economic leverage and dirty tricks to ensure the elimination of democracy in others. He no doubt aims to do the same in those that remain democratic, but he is not stopping there. He is nurturing anti-democratic forces in former states of the Soviet bloc (Russian influence in media and politics is on the rise in the Czech Republic, once a model of Central European democratic development), as well as of Western Europe (France’s presidential front-runner, Marine Le Pen, recently made a pilgrimage to Moscow that reportedly bankrolls her party and others of its ilk). Putin is even beginning to reassert Russian influence in the Middle East, hoping to make his country once again a global power. Likewise, China’s Xi Jinping, having reversed a four-decade trend of liberalization, pushes forward an intimidating military buildup while flexing China’s muscles in the surrounding seas. And Iran, having smothered the pro-democracy Green Movement that arose after the disputed 2009 presidential elections, has achieved dominance in Lebanon and much of Syria and wields great weight in Iraq and Yemen, all steps on the way to its self-proclaimed goal of regional dominance.

These deleterious actions weigh the more heavily in view of the abdication of American efforts in the opposite direction. The United States has been the modern world’s most influential country and has promoted democracy passively by serving as a model and actively through its diplomatic efforts, aid, and even military and covert action practices. But President Barack Obama came to office aiming to correct the overreach of President George W. Bush, who aspired to impose democracy on Iraq and perhaps the whole Middle East. Obama believed America should practice greater self-restraint and exercise extreme caution about saddling others with our beliefs. Wary of neo-imperialism, he resisted calls to more forcefully counteract Iranian and Russian assertions of power.

President Trump’s policies go in the same direction as Obama’s, only further. This week, he congratulated Turkey’s president for eliminating the parliament and consolidating power against the opposition. His “America first” nationalism focuses on what we can extract from the world rather than how we can influence it. His moral relativism toward Russia implies utter indifference to the behavior of foreign governments, unless commercial interests are at stake. Recently, he has added a couple further exceptions: Other countries mustn’t “gas babies” or threaten America with intercontinental nuclear missiles. The list still falls dramatically short of America’s issues of interest and realm of influence. In a February interview, when confronted with the assertion that Putin is a killer, Trump replied, “there are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” The foreign policy thinkers who have gathered under Trump’s banner have gone out of their way to de-emphasize or disparage America’s role in promoting democracy.

Notwithstanding a recent about-face — the alliance is “no longer obsolete,” he said this month — Trump has denigrated NATO, applauded Brexit, and embraced European politicians who seek to weaken or abolish the European Union. Given that economics and trade seem to be the centerpieces of his international interests and given his apparent view that international relations constitute a zero-sum game, one that America has been losing, it makes sense to welcome the disintegration of the E.U.

Yet it is precisely there that the dangers of a democratic crash weigh most heavily. The countries of Western Europe have not only been America’s principal allies in the Cold War and the war against terrorism, they also, as stable, advanced and successful countries, constitute the other main cornerstone of the democratic world. The young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe were seen two decades ago as a source of inspiration for the older, more established West. Today, there is reason to fear for the solidity of Europe’s democracies (both East and West).

Many of these nations are being whipsawed between, on the one hand, burgeoning immigrant-and-refugee populations from predominantly Muslim lands that sometimes show little attachment to their new countries or democratic institutions, and, on the other hand, populist parties channeling anti-immigrant feelings — parties that are themselves equivocal in their commitment to democratic values and institutions. Conditions vary from country to country, but a variety of additional factors also lie at the root of European populism, including low growth and high youth unemployment in the south; voter frustration with Brussels over regulations and matters of sovereignty; anxiety about terrorism; and dissatisfaction with globalization and free trade. The central problem is not that citizens speak out and voice concern in a number of areas, of course. The threat is what populist leaders do with all this. “Populists see themselves as sole moral representatives of the ‘true people,’ Princeton University’s Jan-Werner Mueller says. “Media, courts, even universities can be viewed as ‘enemies of the people.’ ”
None of this will go away easily, or soon. In French elections, Marine Le Pen may end up losing in second-round voting in May. But her populist National Front would almost certainly gain more support than last time. Germany’s Alternative for Germany party is down to 8 percent in polls compared with 15 percent earlier this year. The right-wing populists nevertheless now hold seats in 10 of Germany’s 16 state parliaments and will almost certainly enter the Bundestag through national elections in September.

The sky is not falling yet. But were today’s E.U. to break apart, expect a surge of protectionism, illiberal nationalism and anti-American sentiment in pockets across the continent. Count on even greater Russian assertiveness in Europe in backing anti-democratic forces. Moscow is the source of none of these unfortunate trends, but it has shown itself eager to support and promote all of them.

Scholars Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk have recently challenged the established view in political science that democracy in economically developed countries cannot be reversed. In academic jargon, countries that have alternated power peacefully through elections a couple of times or more and have surpassed a certain income level are deemed to be “consolidated” democracies. Never has such a country slid back to authoritarianism. But Foa and Mounk have adduced a range of surveys showing that publics in Europe and the United States are registering an unprecedented loss of attachment to, even disillusionment with, democratic norms. They ask whether democracy in some of these countries might be in the process of becoming “deconsolidated.”

In our eyes, American democracy is sturdy enough to withstand this trend and even the rise of an erratic, megalomaniacal president. The question that troubles us more is whether the global anti-democratic trends of the past decade will be accelerated by America’s abandonment of its historic role as model and champion of democracy.

Already Trump’s egregious behavior has weakened America’s impact as an exemplar. At this moment, much of the world looks at us astonished or aghast rather than in admiration. The further issue is whether our actions in the realms of diplomacy, commerce and foreign aid will count democracy as an important value — or will they all be guided by the pursuit of the deal and of ego gratification. The president’s impulses to destabilize Mexico, appease Russia and congratulate Turkey do not bode well in this regard.

The withdrawal of American support for democracy could compound the various anti-democratic trends we have described and lead to the fall of Huntington’s “third wave.” That crash might carry away many of the newly minted democracies of the developing world and of the former Soviet empire and might even send tremors through other parts of Europe.

So what? Trump says he wants to put “only America first.” So why care how democracy is faring elsewhere? The answer is that a less democratic world will be a less stable world, more rife with conflict, more fertile with terrorism and less friendly to the United States. The members of Team Trump are not the first Americans to dream of avoiding “foreign wars,” but time and again we have found ourselves drawn in, however reluctantly.

A range of developments make this a dangerous time. America’s abdication of leadership, of its devotion to ideals and practice of generosity in favor of a policy of narrow and short-term self-interest will only make this time more dangerous, not least for America itself.

1a)Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn

— Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) 

Supreme Court pick Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues to face unprecedented protests and interruptions during his questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Turns out, we may know what's motivating at least some of Kavanaugh's liberal detractors. (Gateway Pundit)

Now, this…

Several doctors from Texas attended the hearing today and told interviewer Adam Schindler that they witnessed organized activists with a literal bag of cash paying the rent-a-mob protesters

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/kavanaugh-hearing-attendees-saw-liberal-protesters-paid-off-with-this#4dmFxZV1j4YTlUzS.99
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

SPECIAL:WANT TO SEE THE PRIZE PATROL AT YOUR DOOR ON 10/26?RealClearPolitics has a complete transcript of the doctor's claims to author Adam W. Schindler.
(Video H/T Liberty Unyieldin+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++) I don’t know the provenance or shoresh (origin) of this piece- so you should include this kind of disclaimer before you forward ti

“Give me an asshole who can play…”

This is a famous quote from iconic drummer, Buddy Rich. Buddy only wanted the best on stage with him. He didn’t care about their “moral character” or if they were pleasant to be around. He didn’t even care if he, himself, liked them. He hired only guys who could burn the room down with him …not boy scouts who were mediocre. Hence, the famous quote.

President Donald Trump appears to be in trouble. A series of confessions and convictions, of and by people around him, are casting a strange, dark light on his presidency at the moment. There is a perception (at least) that shady stuff has gone on around this guy. And when shady stuff constantly goes on around someone in charge, you have to conclude that the guy in charge is okay with shady stuff.

Has he hung around tax evaders and money launderers? Clearly. Did he pay off porn stars and Playboy Playmates to keep their dalliances quiet? I think we can safely conclude that he did. Is he a petulant child in the Twitter-verse? One hundred percent. Does he say things in public my mother would slap me for saying? Literally, everyday. Did he conspire with a foreign power to win an election? Maybe. Will any of this make a difference to his supporters? That’s a complicated answer. Let me explain …

I have a theory that all presidential elections are reactions to the sitting president at the time. I’m old enough to remember Jimmy Carter getting elected (in large part) because he was a wholesome, moral breath of fresh air in an atmosphere of corruption and scandal created during the Nixon years. I was only a kid, but I distinctly remember entire churches being excited to go out and vote for an openly Christian man for president. Then, after four years of that disaster, I remember those same people breaking speed limit laws to get to the polls to vote for Reagan as fast as they could.

The conditions that created a “president Trump” kinda started with Bill Clinton, who led to George W Bush …who led to Barack Obama.

By the time we got to him, Mr Obama was going to be the antidote to incompetence and corruption and war mongering and, yes …even racism. But a very strange thing happened during Mr Obama’s presidency. Racism didn’t end. Corruption didn’t end. Wars didn’t end. And incompetence might’ve actually gotten worse. My full day of talking to the customer service agent at the newly created healthcare exchange, did NOT leave me confident.

And what was discovered during Mr Obama’s 8 years, was that in a free market nation, over-taxing, over-regulating and a leader who constantly berates the business community and supports policies that place more emphasis on celebrating the “diversity” of people groups than on law and order for every individual, and foreign policies that take everything but the nation you’ve been elected to lead into account, simply doesn’t work.

What was also exposed in those 8 years was how feckless and weak Republicans had actually become in their opposition to such things. And with candidates literally talking openly about socialism and nationalizing private institutions, a guy like Trump comes along and promises to re-set the foundation of the nation the way Americans understand it …and the way they want it. Is he really that much of a surprise?

I talk occasionally about the fourth revolution. And Donald Trump is the leader of it.

If you’re appalled at the lewd behavior of your president, you’re behind. That ship sailed when one was getting blow jobs by an intern half his age, in the Oval Office …AND. NOBODY. CARED.

If you wish your president was decent and measured and refused to return fire at his critics, you’re behind. We already had that guy and he was called a war criminal, who should be tried at the Hague (Rosie O’Donell’s public announcement) and “retarded” (Chris Rock’s word – DEFINITELY not mine), someone who should force his daughters to go to war (Matt Damon’s suggestion) a monster who deliberately broke the levies in New Orleans to drown black people (Spike Lee’s claim) and on and on and on …AND. NOBODY. CARED.

If you wish your president was upstanding and righteous and said all the right things, you’re behind. Mitt Romney already ran. AND. NOBODY. CARED.

If you wish your president was a humble and honorable true public servant, without moral blemishes, you’re behind. Bob Dole (a man who gave his right hand to his country) and John McCain (a man who gave both arms to his country) already ran. AND. NOBODY. CARED.

Donald Trump was the last branch to grab before the nation hit the ground. But he has changed the game in some ways. Nobody believes a nice guy can get it done, anymore. We’ve had nice guys …and nothing changed.

Cutting taxes and repatriating a trillion dollars was the right thing to do. And it’s working. And only a guy who doesn’t give crap about what people think of him could’ve gotten it done. Moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem was the right thing to do. It sends a message to the rest of the middle east and, in turn, creates a stability hard to quantify. Presidents on BOTH sides of the aisle have promised to do it. It should’ve been done decades ago. But only a guy who doesn’t give a crap about what people think of him could’ve gotten it done.

Taking Kim Jong Un on …head on …is looking like it was the right thing to do. But only a guy who doesn’t give a crap about what people think of him would’ve even attempted it.

While Mr Trump’s lawyers and campaign people were perp-walking in and out of ivory towers, a teenaged girl in Iowa – as middle-America a place as you can find – was being murdered by someone in the country illegally. That creates real world fear for Americans everywhere. We have enough fear of our own citizenry, breaking our own laws. And reasonable Americans don’t think it’s Unreasonable to ask people wanting to come to our country …to sign the hell in. They don’t see how that makes them racists. It simply doesn’t compute. And the only elected leader giving them any cover is the flawed president.

So, did Donald Trump collude and conspire with Russians to win an election? What the media and his opponents (and even a lot of Republicans) STILL don’t or can’t or won’t understand is that it doesn’t matter. He didn’t have to collude with anybody. He was going to win either way. He had millions of Americans at “build a wall” and “cut your taxes” and especially at, “I don’t give a crap what people think.”

Donald Trump may get impeached or arrested or disgraced or unseated or whatever. But what people had better realize is that if he’s gone, a large percentage of the population will be looking for something or someone JUST like him …to replace him. There’s too much at stake; too many socialists on the horizon, too many empty suits looking for lifetime political gigs, too many “nice guys” with great smiles and weak spines, to take anymore chances.

We just want an asshole who can play. And with the economy roaring and North Korea neutralized and ISIS basically contained and defeated, it appears that despite all the weirdness that surrounds him, he can, indeed, play. 

God is not finished with me yet,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) The White House handshake that made everything worse

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ago next week, on Sept. 13, 1993, the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" was formally launched with the signing of the Oslo Accords at a White House ceremony hosted by President Bill Clinton. The moment was captured in an epochal photograph of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat shaking hands before a beaming Clinton.

I was there that day, one of many guests on the South Lawn of the White House invited to witness the encounter in person. A quarter of a century later, there are two things about the event I vividly remember — one small but telling, the other overwhelming and pervasive.

The small detail was Rabin's unwillingness to grasp Arafat's hand. After the documents were signed, Clinton had reached out to coax the two men into a handshake, his outstretched arms nudging them toward each other. Arafat needed no coaxing: Grinning broadly, he readily extended his hand to Rabin. But the Israeli prime minister, clearly uncomfortable, at first didn't reciprocate.

Rabin, who detested the PLO chieftain, had deep misgivings about the Oslo deal, which had been engineered by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. "So deep was his loathing of Arafat," writes historian Efraim Karsh in the fall issue of Middle East Quarterly, "that he planned to shun the Washington signing ceremony altogether" and had to be cajoled into coming by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Rabin reluctantly agreed to "take an anti-nausea pill" and go to Washington, but he wanted as little contact as possible with Arafat, a homicidal monster with much innocent blood on his hands. Inside the White House, before the signing ceremony, Rabin had deliberately kept his distance to avoid shaking hands with Arafat. But on the South Lawn, with the world watching, Clinton left him no choice.

My other indelible recollection of that day is the jubilation of the onlookers. Longtime observers of the Middle East were transported with elation, ecstatic in the belief that peace was coming to the Holy Land. The giddiness was unreal, in some cases literally driving antagonists into each other's arms. I was astonished to see the president of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC embrace the president of the Arab American Institute. Saudi Arabia's normally serene ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, gushed when I approached him for a comment. "Can you believe it?" he marveled. "A week ago, who could imagine Rabin and Arafat shaking hands?"

From the perspective of 25 years, however, it's clear that Rabin's deep skepticism was sound and the public's euphoria groundless. The Oslo process didn't lead to peace. Arafat's pledge to renounce "terrorism and other acts of violence" was a sham. In an Arabic-language broadcast on Jordanian TV the very day of the White House ceremony, he assured Palestinians that he was signing the accords not to end the conflict, but to acquire territory from which the war to "liberate" all of Israel could be pursued.

The Oslo process was the worst self-inflicted wound in Israel's history. Palestinian terrorism didn't end, it spiked. In the 24 months following the handshake, more Israelis were killed in bombings and suicide attacks than in any previous 24-month period in the country's history.

Yet Rabin, of all people, refused to pull the plug. He had declared at first that the Oslo accords were reversible; if Arafat and the new Palestinian Authority didn't uphold their commitment to halt all violence, Rabin had said, Israel would reoccupy the territory it relinquished.

It was a threat he never carried out. Instead, as terror attacks surged, Rabin grimly repeated that the empowerment of the Palestinians must go forward. "For all his exasperation, he could not bring himself to break with Arafat," writes Karsh. "Acknowledging that Arafat had made no serious effort to fight terrorism or to enforce law and order in Gaza, he nevertheless insisted that 'there is no other partner. . . . We must abide by our commitments.' " It was as if, having surmounted such a steep psychological barrier and forced himself to publicly shake Arafat's hand, nothing could ever again induce him to reverse course. Perhaps that would have changed had Rabin not been assassinated, but there's no way to know.

Twenty-five years on, Oslo is a monument to the folly of magical thinking in diplomacy. Land-for-peace was a deadly delusion. The crowd swooned at the White House that day, but it was Rabin whose instincts were right. He should have trusted his intuition and refused to take that anti-nausea pill. Instead he shook hands with a mass killer, and led his nation into disaster.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

3a)

What is the Future of Energy Investing?

It was a big week of announcements in the energy sector, but none of them came from the oil or natural gas giants.

Instead, the spotlight fell on renewables.

In a single week, Facebook announced its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 75% in 2020 and to power its worldwide operations solely with renewable energy by the end of that year.¹ Only a day later, California’s state assembly passed sweeping legislation that would have the entire state obtain 100% of its power from carbon-free sources by 2045.²

These announcements may sound groundbreaking, but for some companies they’re old news – Google and Apple are already powered by 100% renewable energy.³

Another data point this week showed that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) soared 77% in the second quarter from a year ago, with China accounting for more than half of the quarterly tally. This trend is not new either, as sales of EVs have been fairly persistently on the rise.⁴

With these seemingly massive shifts towards renewables, investors may wonder if it’s an opportune time to make a parallel shift in portfolios – away from traditional energy plays and towards renewables.

To which we’d respond: not necessarily.

While these trends and pledges do reflect a corporate and localized shift towards renewable energy sources, the bottom line is that the macroeconomic trend shows that renewables share of total energy consumption is still relatively small compared to oil, natural gas, and even coal.

The Energy Information Administration’s August 2018 “Monthly Energy Review” shows total consumption of energy by source. As you can see, though renewable energy has been on the rise, as a country we still consume more coal, natural gas, and petroleum. The road for renewables to overtake natural gas and petroleum is probably longer than most investor’s lifetimes, in our opinion:

Primary Energy Consumption

Source: Energy Information Administration⁶

 

That being said, these shifts and trends do matter, in our view. As corporations, state and local governments pledge to shift energy consumption patterns, the new demand should drive expansion of wind and solar power, for example, helping to keep those corporations in business and also perhaps contributing to the development of a more competitive landscape in the renewables space.

Before California, Hawaii had already passed legislation (in 2015) calling for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. As it stands today, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. are also considering such a mandate.⁷ As demand expands further and further, competition in the sector ramps up, and technological innovation leads to lower costs and higher margins in the space, the investment thesis for renewables will only grow stronger, in our view.

That’s what makes the trend increasingly important to watch, in our view.

Bottom Line for Investors

Renewable purchasing deals have been at record levels so far in 2018,⁸ but the energy landscape continues to be dominated by petroleum, natural gas, and even coal. As you can see from the chart below detailing energy production in the U.S., it’s easy to envision a future where renewable energy production outpaces coal, but it’s much less easy to envision the time when renewables would surpass natural gas and crude oil (which have both surged in recent years).

Primary Energy Production

Source: Energy Information Administration⁹

 

Even still, it’s worthwhile to watch the shifting trends in the sector especially now, as corporations and state and local governments are setting the stage for what the future may hold. As more corporations and governments follow suit, the demand for renewables should continue to grow in kind, which we believe could make the investment thesis for the sector more attractive over time.

We know that staying up-to-date on these changes in the energy sector as well as other sector updates can be time-consuming and challenging. That’s why at Zacks Advantage, our approach to investing involves the use of technology and research to make investing easier, more fun, and less expensive.

That’s why at Zacks Investment Management we have innovated with new financial technologies and now offer an actively managed robo advisor that:

1. Automates the advising process
2. Invests exclusively with ETFs
3. Uses technology to recommend the appropriate mix of equities and bond ETFs to help achieve your investing goal and specific risk tolerance.
4. Lowers fees and expenses

For further information, we recommend you read our report: The Savvy Investor’s Guide

Get your copy of The Savvy Investor’s Guide¹⁰

3b)

These jobs don't pay what they did

Although hiring is up across most industries, salaries are not following the trend, says The Washington Post. Changes across the workforce, including automation, mean that some jobs are not as lucrative as they used to be. Several industries that do not require college degrees often no longer offer the same opportunities as they did 20 years ago — when they could pay for a house or car.

These industries include:

• Motion picture and sound recording
• Warehousing and storage
• Food manufacturing
• Motor vehicles and parts dealers
• Repairs and maintenance
• Wood products.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++