
Investing Prophet Jeremy Grantham Takes Aim at Climate Change - mooreds
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-17/jeremy-grantham-s-1-billion-plan-to-fight-climate-change
======
dhh2106
>With topsoil disappearing at a rate of 1 percent a year and “only 30 to 70
good harvest years left depending on your location,”

Well, that's definitely a scary framing. Does anyone have sources for this
specific prediction?

Aside from launching his (for-profit) climate fund, (for-profit) vc
investments, and funding research, I'd be very interested in more details on
how the money will be used.

~~~
mooreds
> Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years, and if current
> rates of degradation continue all of the world's top soil could be gone
> within 60 years, a senior UN official said on Friday.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-
of-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-
left-if-soil-degradation-continues/)

~~~
darkpuma
> _" Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years,"_

Such a vague assertion leaves me with more questions than it resolved. Topsoil
should properly be measured in volume, not distance. Presumably they mean a
given area will gain three centimeters in 1,000 years, but what area and under
what conditions? There are some environments with _zero_ topsoil and some
environments with quite a lot of topsoil, so is that _" three centimeters per
1,000 years"_ figure a global average for natural topsoil renewal? I can't
imagine how that's a valid measure of anything. You'd have massive regions
totally devoid of topsoil like the Gobi Desert dragging down global averages.

And what about anthropogenic topsoils? Maybe one of the most famous examples
is _terra preta_ in the Amazon, which not only is madmade but reportedly
regenerates itself at a rate of 1 centimeter _per year_ (a few hundred times
faster than that _" 3 centimeters per century"_ figure..)

~~~
viivaux
> Topsoil should properly be measured in volume, not distance

Should it though?

And regardless of how clear or unclear that is, I gotta say I dislike seeing
when the sum of a multitude of reports is expressed in a headline, only for
people to nitpick through it without even attempting to check the actual
methodology for themselves.

1 cm/year is 33 times faster than 3 cm/100 years, not a few hundred times
faster.

AFAIK terra preta is far from fully understood, and farther still from being
widely used. Very cool stuff though.

~~~
splendidtube
Only responding to the one part of your comment, it was 3cm/1000 years, so a
few hundred (333) years was accurate.

------
sigmaprimus
I have reread this article as some of the comments made me question whether or
not I understood it or not. I had assumed that Jeremy Grantham was investing
his wealth to save the planet, this was the conclusion that the author
presents at the end of the article under the title "Bottom Line". But this is
not necessarily the case, Mr. Grantham is investing in technology that will
show a profit because of climate change, it is a subtle difference but an
important one to consider, sort of the grain of salt that should be taken with
reading of the article.

~~~
rexpop
It's definitely the case that Capital will profit--in the short term, of
course--from climate change, and there's a good argument to be made that
Capital is perpetuating the cataclysmic destruction of our system for such
profits.

Check out [This Changes
Everything]([https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21913812-this-changes-
ev...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21913812-this-changes-everything)).

~~~
martythemaniak
Well I'm going to recommend not checking that book out because it is of
exceedingly low quality and not worth your time. Unless you're looking for
something to reaffirm your existing leftist biases and dogma and not make you
think uncomfortable thoughts, then it's pretty good.

~~~
groby_b
That's somewhat ad hominem. (Well, ad librem. Tomatoe, tomatoh)

I'm not asking for a detailed critique, but what, in your opinion, _is_ a good
book discussing the intersection between capitalism and climate change?

~~~
darkpuma
_Can Life Prevail?_ by Pentti Linkola.

------
luord
I'm confused at all the comments focusing on the fact that he intends to make
money from this because... so what? Making money is not a bad thing, and he
still intends to accomplish good things. One doesn't need to be a martyr to be
virtuous.

------
patrickg_zill
While giving away $1 billion, Grantham’s planning to make even more money, and
he’s hoping climate change offers the opportunity.

The key sentence, buried halfway through the article...

~~~
aaronarduino
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. That quote does come from the article
and it's is a very real concern. This article seems to be about Grantham's new
investment strategy disguised as philanthropy.

~~~
nkassis
Not really new for him. He's discussing and working on climate change for a
long time, go check some of his prior letters to investors.

~~~
aaronarduino
It's not new, however, it is an investment strategy. Investors at this level
are very good at "talking their book." Because doing so helps their
investment. I am not suggesting that giving away $1 billion won't help climate
change. I'm merely suggesting that Grantham may have other motives for giving
money away.

------
sigmaprimus
Just as vast fortunes were made during the financial crisis of 2008 by selling
the markets short ( see the film "The Big Short") I would expect there are
people betting on climate change continuing down its current tragectory, and
these people now have a vested interest in making this happen. I don't know
how many other billionaires are putting their money on the pro climate change
side but wouldn't a smart investor diversify their portfolio by betting on
both the pro and con sides of climate change?

I don't know what the form of such investments would take but can think of a
simple one being investing in real estate northern regions where temperatures
are currently too cold to support agriculture. Possibly an investment in water
desalination plants would also see a gain from climate change. I'm sure there
are many more better examples, my concern is that for every billionaire
looking to save the world, there is another looking to make a buck off its
collapse. So what happens when more of these profateers decide to use their
vast fortunes to tip the scales further towards the collapse rather than
salvation?

~~~
tw1010
You're supposed to diversify your portfolio by betting on uncorrelated things.
Betting both that something will go up and down is like placing money on both
red and black, it doesn't make you any richer.

~~~
mikeash
Can’t you construct a bet that a price will either go up or down, but not
remain steady? I believe that’s called a long straddle but I’m not super
knowledgeable here.

~~~
clairity
yes, but that severely limits your upside, and it’s harder to thread the
needle (in both timing and pricing).

~~~
ham_sandwich
In a straddle/strangle you have unlimited upside on both legs (up and
down/call and put). It’s a matter of determining if the long gamma+long
volatility position is worth the price you pay in option premium up front and
decay thereafter (theta).

~~~
clairity
that's true, and a more complete explanation.

i was taking the practical view that in most cases, the underlying options are
reasonably priced and volatility is not highly unusual, so the practical
upside is small at best. it's easy for the non-professional investor to lose
money on these because you really need some extraodinary non-public
information to exploit them.

------
dqpb
> _he gives a talk titled “Race of Our Lives”—the one between the Earth’s
> rapidly warming temperature and the human beings coming up with ways to
> fight and adapt to climate change._

Or, the race between the cause coming up with ways to fight and adapt to the
effect.

It's possible that human beings are the problem and climate change is the
"solution".

------
peaktechisnow
"Prophet" who makes one horrifically awful market call after another. He was
bullish in February of 2018 (right before implosion), after years of being
bearish. What a clown.

~~~
sigmaprimus
Even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day :)

------
lordnacho
As a former fund manager, I found his description of current capitalism quite
close to my own. Particularly the bit where he says markets are good at a lot
of stuff, but not everything.

Has anyone else had that sort of intellectual journey, where you discover
libertarianism, you learn all the tropes, you feel very confident, and then
after a while you pull back a bit after finding a few issues? And I suppose on
the other side of the spectrum as well?

~~~
AceJohnny2
> _Has anyone else had that sort of intellectual journey, where you discover
> libertarianism, you learn all the tropes, you feel very confident, and then
> after a while you pull back a bit after finding a few issues? And I suppose
> on the other side of the spectrum as well?_

For most people, that transition happens between the teenage years and
adulthood.

~~~
lordnacho
How many people know even the basic facts of political or economic history as
young adults?

------
maxxxxx
Whenever I hear about "investing prophets" I call bullshit and stop reading.

------
WhompingWindows
If he is so prophetic why does he only have a billion instead of a trillion
dollars? Why must we use such a click-baity word in our headlines? Bloomberg
could just say "Investor Jeremy Grantham..."

~~~
jimhefferon
> why does he only have a billion instead of a trillion dollars?

Seriously?

------
Bucephalus355
Going to get downvoted harshly for this, and I deserve some of it.

But let me say, is anyone else just slightly suspicious (don’t have to change
your minds though and I agree with the science here) that investing
billionaires, people who give truth to the saying “behind every great fortune
is a great crime”, would actually be interested in the best possible thing for
the world? Doesn’t that sound a little bit suspicious, like a hint from a life
that something is afoot?

I think it might be healthy to introduce some doubt into the claims of
billionaires no matter what they might be.

~~~
patrickg_zill
"While giving away $1 billion, Grantham’s planning to make even more money,
and he’s hoping climate change offers the opportunity. "

I think that you might be on to something...

~~~
rhn_mk1
Bad/neutral people can still do good things if they take action on things that
reward good deeds (with money).

That's why non-profits hire people to help reach their goals.

~~~
neolefty
It's in Grantham's interest to _encourage_ regulation that minimizes carbon
emissions (because of his investment company's "Climate Change Fund").

Is it good or bad to set yourself up to profit from that?

