The largest bank in the Netherlands, ING, is further restricting its energy financing by halting all new general financing to so-called pure-play upstream oil and gas companies that continue to develop new oil and gas fields.

ING, which has already announced some financing restrictions to fossil fuels in recent years, unveiled new steps in its policy for energy financing in its annual Climate Progress Update 2024 published on Thursday.

“We will stop all new general financing to so-called pure-play upstream oil & gas companies that continue to develop new oil & gas fields,” the bank said. This policy is applicable with immediate effect and includes general corporate financing and bonds.

ING also announced a next step on LNG driven by guidance from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the bank said.

“We will stop providing new financing for new LNG export terminals after 2025,” it added.

ING added, “The urgency of climate change is undeniable and ING wants to play a leading role in accelerating the global transition to a low-carbon economy.”

ING is one of many European banks that have restricted financing to oil and gas in recent years.

UK banking giant Barclays, Europe’s biggest lender to fossil fuel projects, announced in February that it would drop direct funding for new oil and gas projects.

UK’s HSBC said that at the end of 2022, it would stop funding new oil and gas field developments and related infrastructure as part of a policy to support and finance a net-zero transition.

France’s biggest bank, BNP Paribas, said in May 2023 that it would no longer provide any financing for developing new oil and gas fields, regardless of the financing methods.

Meanwhile, regional banks in North America have been striking more deals to lend money to the oil, natural gas, and coal industry in recent years, while many European lenders have either shrunk financing for fossil fuels or pledged to lower their exposure to the sector.

Source: OILPRICE

Impact of the euro falls short

Industrial slowdown

Figure 1. Germany not a clear economic winner among its peers

25 years of the euro

Source:Miroslav Singer

It's actually better than it looks

The key number we highlight above - the month-on-month change in August NODX, is a bit misleading. This is hugely choppy data. One of the main components, pharmaceuticals, is subject to batch production, and hence exports and shipments also tend to come in batches leading to big month-on-month swings. Petrochemicals can also be choppy. Fluctuating run rates of refiners coupled with variations in the number of ships docking to pick up cargoes of oil and gas and other products over a given month can also lead to big swings.

For exactly these reasons, in July, NODX surged by 12.2%MoM. So a 4.7% contraction in August has to be viewed against the backdrop of volatility that always accompanies this data.

For that reason, a lot of people will focus on year-on-year growth. That growth rate slowed down from 15.7% to 10.7% in August. But erratic data can also mess up year-on-year comparisons, especially as the series was no less erratic last year. And we are not big fans of year-on-year analysis for this data for that reason.

We tend to look at NODX as holistically as possible. We have 3m annualised measures - these are still very choppy. 6m annualised - less choppy but you lose a lot of the recent trend. For choice, this month, we are drawn to the year-to-date year-on-year figures. These have the advantage of embedding in previous surges and troughs, and in doing so, absorbing much of the volatility, while enabling underlying trends to emerge.

When you do this, what you see is that overall, NODX is growing, though only at about a 5.5% pace. Electronics and petrochemicals have driven the gains, though petrochemicals seem to be losing some momentum, which might well tally with a slowdown in global / regional demand. Pharmaceuticals exports are still down on this time last year, though they are much less of a drag than they were, and may soon break back into positive territory.

In short, the direction is positive, and getting more so, but the rate of growth is quite subdued. That should not come as a surprise.

Exports: Year-to-date, year-on-year by major group

That's the "what?", what about the "where"?

The chart of where Singapore's exports are going is quite interesting. We only show the major export destinations. And what is immediately obvious is that the G-7 isn't doing very well, with exports all negative on the same year-to-date, year-on-year basis.

Greater China is doing better. Exports to Mainland China are still up more than 10%. Taiwan and Hong Kong are also doing well.

But the strongest growth is from other SE Asian economies. Thailand is topping the current list, followed by Indonesia and Malaysia. This is interesting because this also tallies with observations that China's largest trading area these days is not the US, or the EU, but ASEAN.

This region has considerable growth potential and deserves closer attention while other parts of Asia, and even the world are struggling.

Exports: Year-to-date, year-on-year %, by destination

In crises, it becomes clear how much citizens’ perceptions of reality differ from the sometimes distorted images presented to them by those in power. Established democracies are experiencing an endemic crisis of confidence fueled by leaders’ quests for power, combined with uncontrolled immigration, that is shaking the foundations of social cohesion. The radical forces on the fringes of society are growing, the political center is shrinking, and with it, the voice of reason. Manipulation of public opinion by those in power – or those seeking to destabilize it – is accelerating radicalization, already leading to civil war-like conflicts in some hotspots.

Two recent examples come to mind in the democratic world. In the United States, President Joe Biden’s physical and psychological overexertion was already obvious when, in 2023, he announced his candidacy for a second term. Yet the White House, the Democratic Party establishment and a majority of commentators in the country’s leading media outlets repeatedly maintained that he was fully fit to hold office. In the United Kingdom, the newly elected Labour government faced riots directed against migrants; Downing Street was right to use police force to counter the violence. But instead of also analyzing the multifaceted causes of the anger impartially and preparing a change in economic and migration policies to address grievances, it chose to mobilize exclusively against “Islamophobia” and the “far right.” This suggested that even in the motherland of parliamentary democracy, the contours of authoritarianism may be emerging.

Democracy faces a test

Ignoring growing criticism on social media, governments and government-affiliated media in both countries sought to impose a distorted picture of reality on the public by concealing, whitewashing and sewing outright disinformation. That is eerily similar to the complete lack of freedom of information in authoritarian states like China and Russia, where those in control, in an effort to entrench their uncontested rein on power domestically and further it beyond their borders, routinely deceive their people and hide the truth. That such attempts fail sooner or later is a lesson from history: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” as Abraham Lincoln is purported to have said.

In recent American history, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and the weapons of mass destruction allegedly stored in Iraq were examples of “fooling by disinformation.” That ploy was used again by the Democratic camp in the current election campaign. The party establishment’s claim that Joe Biden was physically and mentally capable of another four years of the presidency was stubbornly maintained even when Americans had long since formed their own opinion of the president’s condition from his TV appearances. The first doubts about Mr. Biden’s health were already expressed when he announced his candidacy in April 2023. A poll published in August of that year found that 77 percent of Americans, including 69 percent of Democrats, thought President Biden was too old to run against Donald Trump again. Nevertheless, it would be 10 months before Mr. Biden’s pitiful debacle in the CNN debate with former President Trump on June 27 in front of 50 million viewers brought clarity.

“The debate was not just a catastrophe for President Biden,” wrote American journalist Bari Weiss, “it was more than that. It was a catastrophe for an entire class of experts, journalists and pundits, who have, since 2020, insisted that Biden was sharp as a tack, on top of his game, basically doing handstands while peppering his staff with tough questions about care for migrant children and aid to Ukraine.”

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

Anyone who committed the transgression of using their own eyes on the 46th president was accused, variously, of being Trumpers; MAGA cult members who do not want American democracy to survive; ageists; or just dummies easily duped by “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “fake news” and, most recently, “cheapfakes” (media manipulations produced using inexpensive, widely available tools).

The reason people hide the truth

But why did the White House and the Democratic Party cling to the legend of the fit president for so long? One honorable motive was respect for Mr. Biden and his life’s work. Another was to protect him as best as possible from attacks from the Trump camp.

Mr. Biden’s weaknesses were denied until, due to time constraints, only Vice President Kamala Harris was considered viable as his successor. It was by no means certain that the Democratic Party would have chosen Ms. Harris in a fair intra-party contest. Before being nominated as the party’s candidate for the presidency, her popularity was low, and her performance as vice president was unremarkable. Even sympathetic commentators admitted that she had failed in the area of addressing the root causes in third countries of mass immigration to the U.S., which she was given responsibility for curbing. Had an open debate taken place earlier in the campaign cycle, it could have destabilized the party and caused political chaos. The Democratic establishment expected Ms. Harris to guarantee the continuation of President Biden’s reelection course.

Three months before the presidential election in the U.S., Americans were presented with a paradoxical picture: President Biden, who was campaigning for the last time despite his cognitive deficits due to advanced aging, was considered by many of the American people to be the only candidate who could defeat Mr. Trump. Then, rather suddenly, he was eliminated after the truth came out on the televised debate. Subsequently, following her accepting the Democratic nomination in August, 59 year-old Kamala Harris has avoided giving interviews or press conferences at which she would have to comment on fundamental political questions. Instead, she goes from one rally to the next with her trademark laugh, thinking that she is spreading good cheer and making 78 year-old Mr. Trump look elderly.

Abraham Lincoln’s warning is still valid, but needs to be updated on one important point: Those who deliberately leave the public in the dark by withholding information or actively disinforming them are themselves the ones who contribute most to the spread of fake news and conspiracy myths. That shakes confidence in democracy or obliterates it. The result of the destruction of democracy can be seen in today’s Russia. President Vladimir Putin has done just this, prohibiting free media, imprisoning and killing voices of reason and forcibly spreading his own narrative to feed his hunger for power. Russia’s elections, like its democracy, are no longer considered either free or fair.

Migration and its challenges deserve honest consideration

With a total population of nearly 67 million in the UK, the 2021-2022 census registered 10.7 million migrants (foreign-born members of the population). This represents a share of just under 17 percent, though it increased by nearly a third compared to the 2011 census. It is estimated that the number of migrants increased by a further 1.4 million in 2022 and 2023 alone, two-thirds from non-EU countries, with immigration of people born in the EU decreasing. The proportion of people born abroad is particularly high in London and the southeast of England, where around 47 percent of foreign-born UK residents live.

Unlike the U.S., the UK was not a country of immigration until the second half of the 20th century. It was not until after World War II in 1948 that the British Nationality Act legalized immigration from countries that were once part of the Empire and now are part of the Commonwealth. By the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of people had already come to the UK in this way. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) accelerated immigration by making it easier for families to join those already in the UK.

The first major conflicts between migrants and locals broke out in London at the end of the 1950s. However, the attempt by right-wing extremists around fascist leader Oswald Mosley to use the unrest for their own ends failed. At the time, the majority of Britons spoke out against the steady influx of migrants, but racist motives played only a minor role. An April 1968 poll by Gallup found that 75 percent of the British public believed that controls on immigration were not strict enough. That figure would soon rise to 83 percent. On April 20, 1968, the Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch Powell warned party members in Birmingham of the consequences. Quoting Virgil, he said, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” The speech sparked heated debate and prompted Edward Heath to exclude Mr. Powell from his shadow cabinet. Nevertheless, polls showed that his position was widely approved (69 percent) and it probably contributed significantly to the Conservatives’ election victory in June 1970.

Late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made similar comments in a television interview in 1978:

If we went on as we are then by the end of the century there would be four million people of the new Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now, that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.

But even during Ms. Thatcher’s time in office and especially after the end of her era in November 1990, the “multicultural” transformation continued through the constant influx. Instead of addressing concerns, politicians and the press began to throw accusations back at the public, ignoring reality. This was done not just through charges of “racism” and “bigotry,” but in a series of deflecting tactics that became a replacement for action. Socialists, liberals and conservatives all came to terms with it. The more recent prime minister, Boris Johnson, wrote in The Telegraph in 2012: “We need to stop moaning about the dam-burst. It’s happened. There is nothing we can now do except make the process of absorption as eupeptic as possible.”

There are also concerns about migrant crimes, especially sexual crimes against native populations. But such worries in the UK are swept under the carpet and have not changed the optimistic tone of the government and the well-meaning press. Authorities look the other way. It took more than 10 years to solve the case of the abuse of 1,400 mostly vulnerable white girls of working class origin and the daughters of Asian families by Pakistani child molesters. Every time “grooming” scandals occurred, local authorities turned a blind eye for fear of causing community problems or being accused of racism, disinforming their constituents.

Source: GIS