Edit Module
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed

Jan 27, 201407:12 AMOpen Mic

Send us your blog for consideration!

The most important climate-change question: How will investors react?

(page 1 of 2)

Newsrooms and family dinner tables hum with observations about crazy weather patterns and natural disasters, from Hurricane Sandy to Philippine typhoons. Scientists blame rising CO2 levels caused by human activities, mainly energy production and use.

The coal sector is in a battle with nuclear energy, clean-burning natural gas, and natural resources like wind and solar power over potential solutions. Glowing articles on the “fracking revolution” and the rapid rise of new energy technologies have dominated the financial press.

Meanwhile, academic institutions and government-funded programs are fueling research on the potential impact of climate change. There are countless studies on the potential impact of rising CO2 levels beyond key thresholds calculated by parts per million in our atmosphere (last year, CO2 concentration levels exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in more than 800,000 years).

In the absence of aggressive action to limit emissions, CO2 levels are projected to reach about 800 ppm by the end of the century. The entire world will become much warmer — heat waves, severe forest fires, intense rainfall, and floods will be more common, and sea levels will rise by as much as a meter. The result will be both a natural and economic disaster for our entire planet.

Many are asking what governments around the world will do to avoid such a calamity. Will they ever organize themselves under a Kyoto-style framework to address the problem by putting a price on carbon through either capping and trading emission allowances or imposing a global tax? The question is a good one. But the more important question is, how will investors and businesses respond to limitations on emissions, or even the likelihood of limitations? And how will they respond when they realize climate change itself threatens their operations and future income opportunities?

Let’s look beyond the emergence of the so-called “impact investors” that are gaining steam in every trading market center by investing in renewable energy or sustainable agriculture. In fact, let’s dismiss them as just another trendy rebranded phenomenon of socially responsible investing.

Let’s instead focus on the steely-eyed hedge fund trader with one finger on the buy button and one on the sell. Let’s go to the extreme. Imagine the math wizard who graduated from Wharton who trades by day and plays online poker at night just to keep the adrenaline flowing. How will new climate data begin to shape his thinking?

Capital expenditures on oil and coal deposits

Hedge fund day traders with the capacity to buy and sell securities nearly instantaneously can either add trillions of dollars to global wealth by driving up our indexes or take that value right off the table in a matter of hours. Buying and selling is coordinated by the emergence of a new worldview — typically one that is backed up by data. These guys love numbers, and they understand accounting principles. What they don’t like are hidden liabilities, which by definition tend to be larger than what can be seen. Day traders know this, and they can run for cover unlike any other investor.

The Potsdam Institute has a calculation that traders can easily grasp. To keep temperature increases from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, a goal already endorsed by many nations, global emissions between now and 2050 have to stay below 550 GtCO2. The world’s existing fossil fuel reserves represent potential emissions of about 2,700 GtCO2.

Much of these reserves are valued as assets by publicly traded companies. The top 100 listed coal companies and the top 100 oil and gas companies represent potential emissions of 745 GtCO2. What will happen when investors start to believe that the majority of these reserves have to stay in the ground? Or that suppliers can only exploit them by paying for the removal of equivalent quantities of carbon from the atmosphere? Day traders will hit the sell button and the carbon bubble will pop.

Sea-level rise and storm damage

Hurricane Sandy was a large and unusual weather event that caused massive damage and focused media and popular attention on the issue of climate change. Yet the real lesson is not yet widely appreciated. Sandy’s significance has less to do with the impact of climate change on hurricane intensity and more to do with the impact of the slow and steady rise in sea level and what this means for the future habitability of coastal areas.


Old to new | New to old
Feb 6, 2014 02:07 pm
 Posted by  John

With (currently) 17 years of no observed surface temperature increases and many climate scientists predicting entry into a cooling "Maunder minimum", market skepticism of the global warming scare certainly appears warranted to this point.

Feb 6, 2014 06:25 pm
 Posted by  Anonymous

John, the climate is changing according to 99% of climate scientists. Why we business people deny this and can't see the golden egg opportunities before us makes even less sense.

Feb 13, 2014 01:24 pm
 Posted by  John

I responded to the global warming threat of your article, and you rebutted with an assertion about climate change.

"It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute

Climate is ALWAYS changing, and businesses in an open market will ALWAYS be changing to meet new needs.

That does not mean it's warming in a market-significant manner (unless your market is selling climate change alarmism). "Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” I bet if you research the source of your "99%" claim you'll find it laughably flimsy as a defense of global warming alarm or as an impetus for economically harmful countermeasures.

If there's a golden egg of opportunity, trust me, entrepreneurs will rush to it, especially given the current fanaticism for "green" initiatives. If anything, I'd say the rush is already exaggerated, as businesses act upon media-built customer preferences, rather than solid science behind actual returns on investment.

Add your comment:
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed
Edit Module

About This Blog

Make your voice heard with IB's "Open Mic." Send your blog entry to Online Editor Jason Busch at jason@ibmadison.com for consideration.



Atom Feed Subscribe to the Open Mic Feed »

Recent Posts

Edit Module