Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Can You Profit from Global Warming?

By G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 26, 2008.


Global warming is becoming a big theme for investors, but not all care about solutions, just the bottom line.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

One day in late January, a few creative Californians dramatized the onset of climate change by filling a stretch of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills with snow and letting snowboarders show off in the sunshine.

Organizers of the stunt, however, weren't looking to inspire lifestyle changes or environmental activism. Their goal was to attract investment in the DWS Climate Change Fund, a five-month-old mutual fund that aims not to fight climate change but simply to profit from it.

"We're really tackling this as an investment opportunity, as opposed to being socially responsible or believing that you can change the world" through investing, says Antonio Galloni, product specialist for the DWS Climate Change Fund. "Climate change is one of the megatrends that will drive investment opportunity in the coming years and decades. It's going to affect every company and every sector."

As climate change becomes a mainstream issue, it's also gaining traction as an important theme for investors eager to profit from big trends emerging on the horizon. At least nine new mutual funds have launched in the United States and Europe over the past year to capitalize on the theme. Earlier this month, more than 400 institutional investors gathered at the United Nations for a summit on using investable assets to advance solutions to climate change.

But as the DWS Fund demonstrates, not all investment products with a climate-change theme are committed to finding solutions. What's more, strategies of climate-change-related funds vary wildly and lead to portfolios that sometimes have little in common with one another. This poses a challenge for investors aiming to put their money where their environmental values are. One risk: Despite intentions to the contrary, they could at times be profiting from climate change without doing much at all to fight it.

How investors can fight the good fight on this issue and still make money isn't easy. That's because the problem of a warming planet is colossal in scope and proposed solutions are largely still in development, according to Frank Coleman, executive vice president of Christian Brothers Investment Services, a money management firm charged with investing assets for Roman Catholic institutions.

Climate change-related funds "are all coming at it with different approaches," Mr. Coleman says, "because we don't know which approach is going to work or which are going to take hold in the minds of investors."

As world leaders debate what to do about climate change, mutual funds are in effect placing bets on which sectors and companies will thrive in a future, "carbon-constrained world." That's the view of Leslie Lowe, director of the energy and environment program at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of 275 faith-based institutional investors.

Yet because carbon isn't regulated as a pollutant, she says, industry analysts are just now developing techniques to determine which firms are most at risk in a setting marked by stiffer regulation.

"Tools for doing the analysis are really immature," Ms. Lowe says. "So anyone can say, 'I've got a green fund.' And who's to say any different?"

Nevertheless, researchers are educating investors on how to deploy assets both for profit and environmental solutions. This month, McKinsey Global Institute issued a report that says that with targeted annual investment of $170 billion, investors could cut in half the rate by which global demand for energy is projected to grow over the next 13 years. And they could do it while earning an average projected annual return of 17 percent.

The key, the report suggests, lies in getting more productivity per unit of energy consumed in four primary sectors - commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation. For solution-minded investors, this means putting their money in enterprises whose stock-in-trade involves energy-related services, such as engineering and design.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, business, investing, ethical investing

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
THE ISSUE IS CO2; NOT ENERGY
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 27, 2008 12:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
G. Jeffrey MacDonald and the Christian Science Monitor:

1. If you want to know something about energy, why don't you
talk to people who actually know what energy is? That would be
scientists, not economists. That's right, I said economists are
NOT scientists. Economics is a mathematized humanitology.
The correct scientists are physicists and chemists and maybe
biologists. You should also talk to engineers in the following
branches: nuclear, electrical, mechanical, civil and chemical.
That covers almost all engineers.

2. Conserving energy is NOT going to make it. Conserving
energy is helpful, but every time something becomes more
efficient, people do so much more of it that the gain in efficiency
is more than lost in more doing. When cars get more efficient,
people drive more. We do NOT need to "cut in half the rate by
which global demand for energy is projected to grow." Energy
IS NOT the issue.

CO2 IS THE ISSUE.

We need to cut by 90% our actual output of CO2 by 2050. We
will also Double or Quadruple or much more the energy we use in
that time.

3. People following G. Jeffrey MacDonald are going to loose
their shirts. Why? Because G. Jeffrey MacDonald is a reporter,
not a scientist and not an engineer. Likewise for people
following the economists and stock marketers listed by G. Jeffrey
MacDonald. Stock marketers make money by selling stock.
When you buy stock, the stock marketer wins regardless of
whether or not you do.

4. Faith-based institutional investors haven't got a clue. Why?
Because god does not exist. Religion is worse than snake oil
because when you buy a bottle of snake oil, at least you get a
bottle. Look elsewhere in Alternet for my comments on religion.

5. If you are serious about winning and believe that civilization
will survive, then bet against coal and bet in favor of nuclear
power. Why? Because coal fired electric power plants are the
#1 source of CO2 and nuclear power plants are the only
replacement that actually works for base load power RIGHT
NOW. Wind power does NOT work when the wind is not
blowing and solar power does not work at night. Energy storage
schemes are just methods of WASTING huge amounts of money.
If you want to waste your money, be my guest. See my
comments elsewhere in Alternet on these subjects. Of course,
civilization might choose to NOT survive, in which case money
will no longer exist either.

6. Reference "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb,
2007. Something nobody expects will probably change the
situation so much that all present bets are wrong. Since nobody
expects it, I don't know what that will be either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]