Profiting from Global Warming
USA Today had an interesting article on Tuesday titled Global Warming a Hot Spot for Investors. The article singled out climate change as the major investment theme of the future. Financial services firms are busily working, trying to figure out which stocks and sectors will be helped and which will be hurt by climate change.
For investors, it doesn't matter if global warming is real or if man is causing it - what matters is how people react to the perceived threat. Money will be made, and lost, based on who winds up being the winners and losers in the battle against climate change. Will ethanol be the fuel of the future for cars? Will it be produced from corn, or from some other source of biomass? What about biodiesel? Or hydrogen? What if someone comes up with a device that scrubs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and claims that $25 million prize from Richard Branson? That could turn a small start-up company into the next MicroSoft. Only time will tell where the money will go. But there is money to be made from climate change. Lots of it.







Comments (10)
Yes, unfortunately the global warming hype will be the next economic, www.com failure of the late 90's. Don't buy into it! Watch, you'll see.
Posted by Rich | March 2, 2007 2:17 PM
Terrific. In an adversarial climate (and the arguments from people who don't want climate change* are increasing every day), profit is the way to enlist everyone.
I do hope more work will be done on solar, wind, and wave energy. There's a terrific project collecting wave energy that Scotland thinks might be the next "North Sea Oil". In my explorations I read about hidden costs of many solutions. For example, carbon offsets are not 100% successful (depend on honest and accurate brokers, which most of them try to be), too complicated, and the original emitter doesn't change their behavior. Biofuels of all types also have emissions, and we've been seeing food shortages in Mexico as corn is diverted to fuel. Electricity is only relatively cleaner than oil (hybrids). Conservation only works if you do it. If we could use more combustion-free things like wind, sunlight, and waves, we'd really be making progress.
On another subject, there's some scarifying information on other emissions; did you know about animal emissions (politespeak) and methane/nitrous oxide (23/296 times more potent than carbon dioxide)? The Siberian permafrost melt is predicted to release a lot of methane, which I don't think gets figured in to many calculations.
*Please, I'm avoiding the arguments pro and con, this is an attempt to be moderate and accept that these people honestly disagree with me.
Posted by Susan Anderson | March 2, 2007 3:33 PM
I don't blame people who are investing off of the GW cause. I mean Al Gore did. He made a movie about GW(tring to scare us all) and has a huge home and sucks up alot of electricity. If I had the money to invest in a company I would do it because that is the American way.
Posted by Joe | March 2, 2007 3:39 PM
What a cash cow, indeed!
Even Al Gore is getting in on the action. It turns out his 'carbon credits' are bought from a company called 'Generation Investment Management', who's chairman is... Al Gore!
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21309812-25717,00.html
Basically, he's buying 'carbon credits' from himself!
The man is either the biggest hypocrite ever to walk the face of the Earth... or the smartest, slickest, and sleaziest businessman EVAR.
Posted by MG | March 2, 2007 3:40 PM
A couple of additions before taking a few days off!
here's a new BBC article on wave energy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6410839.stm
In my researches to check on animal emissions, permafrost, and methane, I came across a 2005 item that the 10 warmest years on record were in the last 11 years. Later, 2006 beat them all.
And Darren, if you read this, of course I haven't been carefully observing all weather worldwide since the 60's. As I said, I began learning then from friends in the sciences and observing on an occasional basis. In the early years scientists simply stated that no matter which way the temperature went, extremes of weather would increase. I separated what I wrote into this and later closely observing worldwide weather in the last few years (since internet access). I will check out Camille; Mitch was a random item in my memory. Of course over the course of history weather has fluctuated and the detailed records we have extend only about a century. But even taking that into account the increasing commentary treating climate change as opinion is out of step with world science. I wonder if that's why you all need to be so nastily sarcastic about Al Gore.
Posted by Susan Anderson | March 2, 2007 4:22 PM
This topic is splitting people into factions faster than you can say "CO2 emissions". But since economic concerns drive just about every other major change in public opinion and legislation, investment is going to play a role in global warming solutions. What we need to watch for is whether investment capital and subsidies are really going to viable, emissions-eliminating developments. You can keep tabs on this kind of corporate PR, in all its guises at: http://www.desmogblog.com
Posted by Angela | March 2, 2007 5:18 PM
MG, you stole my thunder and hit the nail right on the head. Good job!
Posted by Rich | March 2, 2007 5:52 PM
Thirty years ago, the big push was to do something about Global Cooling. Now, it's Glo-bull Warming. Are there any reasonable, perspicacious, thoughtful people left in America or is it all about FEELINGS and wanting to appear important? No weather outlet can accurately predict 10 days forward from today -- and now we're supposed to become all a-twitter about this latest glo-bull threat. It all boils down to a cadre of guilt-foistering nay-sayers who hate America and who want our wealth and our lifestyle to come under the control of Socialists. To sign on to Kyoto is to eschew what it means to be American and, instead, to put this nation under the rubric of foreign control. Let's shut down all of America's machinery, cars, planes, trains -- and go back to cooking and heating with wood. Oops! Wouldn't 300,000,000 Americans burning wood encourage Global Warming?
Posted by George Mitchell | March 2, 2007 10:21 PM
Great link MG, I posted it at several sites.
Posted by Chris | March 3, 2007 7:39 PM
Susan,
As far as methane goes, seems to me that I've read something that methane concentrations have been leveling off as of late. If I find the source, I'll post it. I think that you may have presented us with a red herring.
What's with the hang-up on weather extremes? They've been around for eons. There just hasn't been anyone around to report on them. They show up in the geologic record everywhere. This is quite a weather extreme, but I guess you could call it a climate extreme. For instance, the flooding of the Mediterranean Sea. During the last ice age, the Mediterranan was pretty much dried up (salt deposits). When sea levels rose as the ice caps melted (now how did that happen in the absence of SUV's?), water poured through the Straits of Gibralter in such quantities that it dwarfed any waterfalls known today. Pretty catastrophic for those living in the Mediterranean Basin wouldn't you say? In fact, this event probably is the source for the biblical floods. Same thing happened on the Black Sea a bit later.
You just need to look a little harder for evidence of weather and climate extremes in the past.
algore is an idiot, by the way. And I'm being nice. Remember. Laura does have standards.
Posted by Paul | March 5, 2007 5:47 AM