
Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.economist.com/business/2019/09/19/climate-capitalists-have-serious-money-in-climate-friendly-investments
======
esotericn
Good.

Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring.

After you have some amount - say a few hundred grand, a million - the actual
number doesn't really matter - you're waving your metaphorical dick around.

And that's fine. If we can convert that dick waving into serious change - if
we can get the metric by which intelligent beings compete to be something
good, like carbon captured or species saved or ICE cars avoided or _whatever_
- we are well on the way to winning.

You built an enormous solar farm? Adonis DNA.

If we hack it so that it just slots in to the Natural Way of Things - e.g.
with a carbon tax or similar - such that investing and buying and doing good
things is simply logical - even better.

~~~
cheez
Except that's not what happens. What happens is people line up at the trough
of government directed funding and distort the market, often negatively for a
long period of time.

For example, people who are against meat consumption for climate purposes are
linked through various entities to companies like BYND. So they begin to work
on legislation that will profit BYND.

For another example, the solar funding debacle under Obama.

Otherwise I have no qualms with what you're saying.

~~~
optimiz3
> solar funding debacle

Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs. What % of startups do you expect to
succeed, 100%?

~~~
shkkmo
The issue (as I understand it) was not that any one company failed, but that
people lied about or ignored warning signs that failure was imminent for
specific companies (edit: and that this may have been done due to conflict of
interests). The actual policy issues and implication are hidden behind the
partisan wrangling and spin that surrounded this topic.

There are legitimate concerns about conflicts on interest for people who have
large investments in green companies while also lobbying strongly for
particular "green" public policies. The risk is that if we uncritically accept
these people at their word, we may end up with policies that do less to
protect the environment and climate and more to line the pockets of the
advocates.

Of course, these issues are endemic to our current political/economic systems
and don't just apply to investment in climate friendly companies.

I would be much more inclined to trust the motivations of environment
advocates with large investments in environmental companies if those
investments were purchased and administered through some sort of blind trust
to alleviate conflict on interest concerns.

~~~
pjc50
What about all the coal-funded coal lobbyists?

~~~
shkkmo
Hence why I called it "endemic".

------
jmpman
My neighbor is convinced that climate change isn’t real and has been pushed by
the left to make activists feel important. As there’s an economic slant to
this, my cynical view is that there’s a chance that climate change agenda is
being pushed by AstroTurfing groups to drive government handouts to the Green
industry. I’m 99.9% convinced that climate change is happening and will follow
the models.... but maybe I’m being scammed.

~~~
skosch
It's very healthy of you to be skeptical of government handouts to the Green
industry – not because climate change is fake (it's not), but because
government rarely knows how to pick the right tech to invest in. (Note that
the government also hands out lots of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry,
though.)

The more economically rational way of solving the problem is to implement a
carbon fee and dividend [0]. You simply put a tax on fossil fuels as they come
out of the ground. This makes everything downstream a bit more expensive. You
then return 100% of the tax revenue back to citizens – so government doesn't
grow and consumers don't suffer, but companies suddenly feel intense
competitive pressure to get more fuel efficient so they can lower prices. The
market takes care of the rest.

It makes so much sense, even many of the big corporations are onboard [1].

The best thing you can do today is to contact your local representative about
this policy [2].

[0] [https://citizensclimatelobby.org/why-we-support-a-price-
on-p...](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/why-we-support-a-price-on-
pollution/)

[1] [https://www.clcouncil.org/](https://www.clcouncil.org/)

[2] [https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-
representative/#...](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-
representative/#/48/)

~~~
chillacy
> You then return 100% of the tax revenue back to citizens – so government
> doesn't grow and consumers don't suffer

Supposedly HRC almost ran on universal basic income based on a carbon tax, but
the math didn't quite work out in 2016.

But regardless of what happens to the money, economic incentives work.

------
m0zg
I hope they have serious money in nuclear, because nuclear is the straightest
path away from carbon-heavy energy. It works well, and it works for a very
long time (like 50-60 years or more - we will have fusion by the time those
power plants are decommissioned). And now we can build power plants which
physically can't blow up because they are unpressurized (sodium coolant) and
there's no water in the system to produce hydrogen.

~~~
ngold
10 billion and 10 years a nuclear reactor, if that doesn't turn into 30
billion and 20 years before abandoning it. Which has already happened.

------
tito
Related: Warren Buffett is investing $30B into wind farms. Not to help his
conscience ;) [https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/warren-buffett-spends-
bi...](https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/warren-buffett-spends-big-on-clean-
energy/)

~~~
fwr
Caution: spammy website, and this was back in 2014:
[https://www.utilitydive.com/news/warren-buffett-to-keep-
bett...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/warren-buffett-to-keep-betting-on-
energy-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/272471/)

------
fnord77
Capitalism is not going to fix climate change.

This has to be a government-driven manhattan-project/moon-shot/new deal-
project where no profit motive is involved at all.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental
impacts_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669465)

~~~
PeterStuer
By relocation all the most devastating envirnmental impacts of their
unsustainable consumption feeding industry to poorer countries?

~~~
DoreenMichele
I haven't read the book, but on a more microeconomic scale, businesses that
produce more trash have lower profit margins.

This is a very well known phenomenon and gets used to make a business case for
doing the right thing out of enlightened self interest: Don't do it for some
nebulous sense of virtue. Do it to fatten your bottom line.

In restaurants and catering businesses, profit margins are so slim that
upgrading to lightbulbs and appliances that use less energy can put a business
in the black that has been struggling.

~~~
PeterStuer
Reference needed. This is 100% contrary to my experiences in contacts with
businesses, as most (not all, typical exceptions are those that either are
semi-charities or some that have made ecology the focus of their brand
identity, although the latter contain a group that strongly depends on
greenwashing vs actual environmental action) will cut every corner on
regulation that tries to price in some of the negative externalities and then
some.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_How Your Business Can Cut Costs by Reducing Waste_

[https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-your-business-can-cut-
costs...](https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-your-business-can-cut-costs-by-
reducing-wastes)

 _Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Profits?_

[https://business-ethics.com/2015/05/05/does-corporate-
social...](https://business-ethics.com/2015/05/05/does-corporate-social-
responsibility-increase-profits/)

 _Good business: Why placing ethics over profits pays off_

[https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/blogs/innovat...](https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/blogs/innovation-
matters/good-business-why-placing-ethics-over-profits-pays-off.html)

 _5 Simple Ways to Improve Your Profit Margins_

[https://www.inc.com/david-finkel/5-simple-ways-to-improve-
yo...](https://www.inc.com/david-finkel/5-simple-ways-to-improve-your-profit-
margins.html)

 _Top 10 Energy Conservation Tips for Restaurants_

[https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/141/energy-
conserva...](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/141/energy-conservation-
tips-for-restaurants.html)

Of all commercial buildings, restaurants use the highest amount of energy per
square metre. In fact, UK Power and the Family Hospitality Group estimate that
anywhere between 5 to 15% of a restaurant’s total expenditure can be taken up
by energy alone!

Considering that the average profit margin of a full-service restaurant is
usually less than 10% of gross revenue – energy consumption suddenly becomes a
BIG financial concern.

[https://www.dexma.com/energy-efficiency-in-restaurants-
pubs/](https://www.dexma.com/energy-efficiency-in-restaurants-pubs/)

------
tossAfterUsing
If i were feeling glib, i might say something like:

> File under: "duh"

However, I think it's important to recognize that just because this shocking
headline might be true, doesn't mean that capitalism is necessarily
incompatible with conservation & environmental stewardship.

~~~
mc32
I think conservation and stewardship is only very loosely coupled with
economic system. No form of economics that I know has been inherently better
for conservation. In all economic systems taking shortcuts is the easy way.

------
ThomPete
As someone who is actively looking for things in this space to invest in and
to determine whether it makes sense at all, I can only say that so far it
doesn't look good.

There are a bunch of problems with the fundamental analysis of the problem,
but even if we all magically agreed that climate change was the biggest threat
to humanity then the real problem is in the solutions.

Energy is a physics not a technology problem.

And the reality is that we haven't had any major scientific breakthroughs in
this space since fossil fuels and nuclear.

Almost all of modern society is depending on them and there is no new
fundamental scientific discoveries to replace them anytime soon.

I have sat in on countless plastic alternative presentations only to discover
that while it might work in a lab it won't scale and it's only for a fraction
of the things you can use plastic for. Plastic gives us everything from as
hard as diamond to as soft as spiderweb. No other materical does that.

When it comes to energy there are currently three potential solutions worth
following with the ability to solve our energy needs and still be green.

Fusion, thorium and fuell cells.

If you want to solve fusion you have to at least try and taggle plasma which
means tagging magnets or something similar. In other words you have to make
discoveries in completely different fields than the field of fusion itself.

Fuell cells is equally far off and we don't really have a realistic model for
how to create them and apply them to ex wind and solar which will be needed to
make them even remotely competitive in the bigger game otherwise the realities
of their capacity factor is just not going to cut it.

Thorium is the one that seams most feasible but still require a lot of
progress to be anywhere close to ready.

In other words I think we will be stuck with fossil fuels for a very very long
time and if these climate capitalists were really serious about this they
would put the money towards fundamental science instead, the will have a
slightly smaller chance of succeeding but if successful their investment will
dwarf whatever they can do in the startup space.

~~~
icebraining
Can you clarify what do you mean by "replace"? Are you talking about full
replacement for all uses of plastic/fossil fuels (so that we don't have to use
them ever again), or are you saying there is no way to replace a significant
part of the used plastic/fossil fuel even by selecting specific alternatives
for specific uses (like packaging)?

~~~
ThomPete
There is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel.

We underappreciate how many things fossil fuel can be used for. It's not just
fuel and plastic which in itself is extremely valuable. But it's also
pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles,
toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on.

It's so ever present in our daily life that living without it would kill most
of us.

Sure there are alternatives to some of this, but we are not even close to
having solutions for 99.9% of the uses of plastic today.

With regards to energy then also here it's hard to see the alternatives
without fuell cells, thorium or fusion being a reality anytime soon.

I've looked at a lot of different alternative energy forms and while there are
some interesting concepts in between I have yet to see something that can
compete properly. A lot of Rube Goldberg solutions out there or solutinos that
require a complete redevelopment of the very infrastructure we spent 200 years
building.

So I am very skeptical but still looking. I am not saying you can't make a
good investment on some of them, but whether you can save the world by
investing in some of the things I have seen at least is very unrealistic.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I doubt many, if any, of those advocating for a move to renewable energy and
EVs are calling for a blanket ban on oil for non-combustive uses.

We have alternatives for far, far more than 0.1% of the world's plastic
though. We could probably get rid of most of it without a change in our
quality of life, or effectiveness of products. Keep the oil for the few uses
that _can 't_ be easily replaced by other more sustainable sources. Which
almost certainly means contact lenses, and assorted medical uses, specialised
equipment, some chemicals etc.

~~~
ThomPete
We don't have alternatives and those we have are simply not good enough and
extremely expensive.

Even if you could replace 10% it wouldn't mean anything.

