If you scratch the surface of the article you will realise that the biggest loser is Chile. This draconian law, if anything, will make investing in lithium production unattractive, regardless where in the value chain one invests.
Until and unless we get better battery chemistries that are not reliant on LI, you're going to find someone who will work with Chile's requirements.
It's a suppliers market and Chile has decided to "eminent domain" their resources and remove private ownership from the game, as is their right.
Yesterday would have been the best time to do this, and now is the next best time. At some point battery chemistries will shift to Na or solid state will take the crown, but until then...
It doesn't materially affect your point, but '1 [percentage point] lower revenue growth' means slightly-less-than-1% lower (as in lowered by slightly less than 1%) total revenue.
1% lowered revenue growth (which I know isn't what you meant) would mean slightly-less-than-0.01% lower total revenue.
The problem with "free or extremely cheap transportation" is that it's neither free nor cheap. It's expensive and paid for by tax payers through constant budget deficits and debt issuance that will indebt future generations.
Unlike a car, which comes for free with your birth certificate, as well as a voucher for lifelong supply with gas. And don't forget about all the highways that get built for free!
I don't immediately see how one would be more or less expensive than the other.
Putting aside the absurd attack labeling my argument as pro-car (don't own one by the way), I'll I'm saying is that public transport ain't cheap nor free, and has a cost. You can cover your eyes, be against x or y, but that won't stop things from being different.
Page 45 of the Financial Stability Review, May 2022:
Market volatility also expanded into crypto-asset markets. Bitcoin lost 50% of its value (versus the US dollar), and
stresses emerged in markets for stablecoins. While a number of stablecoins lost their peg against the US dollar, broader financial stability risks remain limited. At the same time, the implications of stresses on stablecoin Tether could be significant for the crypto-asset ecosystem. A failure of Tether may pose a threat to the stability of crypto-asset markets, as it provides a substantial amount of trading liquidity for buying and selling of other crypto-assets. A run on Tether could disrupt trading and
price discovery in crypto-asset markets, which could turn disorderly. Contagion effects for the broader financial system arising from a potential “crypto crash” still seem limited, although individual investors may suffer significant losses.
VPPs are a great way for utilities and other companies to get customers hooked into long-term contracts and milk for more fees.