# Investment and climate change



## Old Rocks

I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.

Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change

Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed. 
Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion. 
The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion. 
Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion. 
Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities. 
Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action. 
Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored. 
The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.


----------



## Mr. H.

In general, the more risk you are willing to assume via investment, the greater the potential return.

Legislating hydrocarbon usage out of existence in order to reduce the investment risk in low-carbon technologies may not prove effective. Evidently, Obama thinks otherwise.


----------



## Mini 14

Climate change is a political movement, not a scientific one.

As such, whether to invest in solutions or to ignore the sermons is an opinion, as are all investments.

There is science to support the reality of AGW, and there is science to disprove it.

Basically, all we know about AGW is that we don't know shit about AGW. It is simply WAY too early in the development of Science to have the answers.

Which returns us to whether or not one should invest in it.

Opinions, assholes.....you know the rest.

Its a penny stock.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Mini, I think your qualifications in investing are maybe equal to mine. 

I would really like to see someone that has some knowledge give an opinion on the quality of advice this company has given in the past.


----------



## Mini 14

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Mini, I think your qualifications in investing are maybe equal to mine.
> 
> I would really like to see someone that has some knowledge give an opinion on the quality of advice this company has given in the past.



So you're holding silver as well?



Good on 'ya, bro!!!


----------



## Willis

There are number of factors that effects the investment in stock market as the investor is the human being and he is affected by weather more frequently. So definitely weather exert its influence over the stock market as well.


----------



## boedicca

Investments in Climate Change = Lobbying for taxpayer dollars for subsidies

It's just a bunch of transfer payments, not real investment.

A good example:  The Solyndra Scam.

Another good example:   Al Gore becoming a Kleiner Perkins partner.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OR finally gets one right!  Money and government funding is the only thing keeping real scientist from kicking the Warmers to the curb at every College and University in this country.

Thanks for finally understanding that EnviroMarism known as AGW is all about the Benjamins


----------



## Mad Scientist

Old Rocks said:


> I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.
> 
> Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change
> 
> Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
> Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion.
> The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.
> Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion.
> Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
> Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
> Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
> The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.


Now you see Global Warming for what it really is: A fight over government subsidies. Good for you!


----------



## expat_panama

Old Rocks said:


> ...like to see someone that has some knowledge give an opinion on the quality of advice this company has given in the past.



Better still, we can do our own looking and decide for ourselves what's going on. 

Here's how the carbon credit market compares to the S&P500 for the past three years:




For decades now these so-called 'green stocks' never have looked any good to me


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.
> 
> Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change
> 
> Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
> Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion.
> The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.
> Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion.
> Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
> Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
> Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
> The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.



Good for them.

Wait, I bet you think this means the government should force us to invest in technology that is going to cost trillions of dollars and produce little, if any, return for decades. Tell me something, what is wrong with letting someone else take the lead, make the mistakes, and then step in and invest when a technology that actually works is available?


----------



## Chilton

Environmental factors will play a vital role in the future investments as there is great volatility has been seen in the environment due to heavy anti industrialization.China and other Eu countries are already set their strategy to set up environmental friendly industries.


----------



## jdk1970

You can argue about some vast conspiracy to put money in the pockets of an environmental lobby, mother nature is the ultimate judge. We'll see where we are in the next 20-50 years.


----------



## daveman

expat_panama said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...like to see someone that has some knowledge give an opinion on the quality of advice this company has given in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better still, we can do our own looking and decide for ourselves what's going on.
> 
> Here's how the carbon credit market compares to the S&P500 for the past three years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For decades now these so-called 'green stocks' never have looked any good to me
Click to expand...


Yeah, but think how smug and superior you'll feel as you go broke!


----------



## daveman

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.
> 
> Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change
> 
> Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
> Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion.
> The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.
> Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion.
> Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
> Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
> Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
> The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them.
> 
> Wait, I bet you think this means the government should force us to invest in technology that is going to cost trillions of dollars and produce little, if any, return for decades. Tell me something, what is wrong with letting someone else take the lead, make the mistakes, and then step in and invest when a technology that actually works is available?
Click to expand...

Because you can't exert overbearing governmental control over individual lives like that.

That's what AGW is all about.


----------



## flacaltenn

DaveMan:



> Yeah, but think how smug and superior you'll feel as you go broke!



You mean like all those California Public workers with their pensions invested in green crap and socially conscious business? How's that workin' out? Not too well. Typically underperforms so badly they have to quietly shift back to REAL markets and REAL risks. 

OldRocks:

That analysis is some of the foggiest handwaving I've ever seen. Not a single specific technology, idea, or market mover mentioned. And a dreadful lack of "past historical performance". 
Just go with GM and lose your money the easy way. Anything that is subject to the vagueness of politics is gonna keep you up at night... Volt sales have no where to go but UP!!!


----------



## westwall

CrusaderFrank said:


> OR finally gets one right!  Money and government funding is the only thing keeping real scientist from kicking the Warmers to the curb at every College and University in this country.
> 
> Thanks for finally understanding that EnviroMarism known as AGW is all about the Benjamins






We have pointed that out to him on more then one occasion so it's nice to see he is finally adding two and two together, but really...did it need to take so long?


----------



## daveman

flacaltenn said:


> DaveMan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but think how smug and superior you'll feel as you go broke!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like all those California Public workers with their pensions invested in green crap and socially conscious business? How's that workin' out? Not too well. Typically underperforms so badly they have to quietly shift back to REAL markets and REAL risks.
Click to expand...

Yup.  Once again, idiot leftists and their short-sightedness has fucked over folks.  But good luck getting any of them to take responsibility for it.


----------



## skookerasbil

Its all about clean coal............

Coal Market Trends of 2010 | Coal Investing News

http://resourceinvestingnews.com/14012-when-clean-coal-is-king.html


Green energy technology is a fringe market.........and anyway, windmills are gay.


http://behindtheplug.americaspower.org/2009/04/can-wind-power-replace-coal.html


----------



## Si modo

Disaster capitalism.


----------



## Patrick2

Old Rocks said:


> I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.
> 
> Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change
> 
> Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
> Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion.
> The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.
> Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion.
> Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
> Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
> Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
> The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.



The main thing that poses risks to investors is the usual - leftwingers meddling in markets, which as with the financial near-collapse usually ends in some level of disaster.


----------



## SofiaY

climate change and economy...hoping for a great future


----------



## Old Rocks

Stocks - News & Commentary


----------



## waltky

Climate change to speed up polar melting...

*Polar Scientist Charts Melting Caused by Climate Change*
_August 12, 2011 - Expects accelerated thawing to continue unless greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced_


> Michael Gooseff follows water to the end of the earth. The Pennsylvania State University hydrologist works in remote regions of the Arctic and Antarctic, where ice and frozen ground are thawing. He expects polar warming and melting to continue at an accelerating pace if no significant reductions are made in climate-changing greenhouse-gas emissions.  At the annual convention of the Ecological Society of America in Austin, Texas this week he posed this question: How are those polar systems responding to climate change?
> 
> The answer is based on his on-going research into how water crosses landscapes and what happens to it above and below ground.  In the northern regions, of course, we have sea ice, but a smaller surface area than in the Antarctic where we have very large ice sheets. And that actually plays into the differences in climate change responses that were seeing at both of those places.
> 
> According to Gooseff, the two regions also differ widely geologically and ecologically. He says the Antarctic McMurdo Dry Valleys station where hes based appears like a polar desert system with open exposed soils, with no vascular plants at the surface and with glaciers coming down from the mountains, whereas in northern Alaska, we have a lot of plants. The tundra is actually dense with vegetation and very green.
> 
> Gooseff is documenting change over time, by observing patterns in polar rivers, streams and lakes. He recalls a 2003 visit to Alaskas North Slope, when his team charted the course of an unusual muddy stream.  We follow this up and finally we found a big gash in the hill slope essentially, and all of this mud pouring out from underneath it.   Heres what had happened: A massive ice wedge under the surface had melted, thawing the permafrost and causing the soil above it to collapse. That created a deep gully in the hillside.
> 
> MORE


----------



## TruthSeeker56

It seems to me that Europe and China have a helluva lot more to worry about than investment in "climate change" technologies.
Most of Europe is teetering on insolvency, the Euro is in big trouble (not to mention the U.S. dollar), and China is very worried about the very serious economic problems in the United States.
I have a hard time believing that ANY of these continents and countries are giving a shit about "low-carbon" technologies.  If they are, they have their priorities extremely screwed up, which should come as no surprise to anybody.
I won't even delve into the whole global warming/climate change SCAM, except to say that it is all the modern-day version of selling beads to the Indians for their land.


----------



## Gallagher

I think investing in Climate Change is a loser and a gimmick for the fund companies. As expected, it has backfired on the mutual fund companies that pumped this nonsense. I don't recall the complex, but there actually was a fund company which kicked off a marketing campaign with snow boarders on Rodeo Drive (complete with a mountain of snow); as well a jungle in NYC. Who paid for that??? It was viewed as an insult that investors would place their money in a fund which employed such marketing gimmicks. Wish I could recall the fund complex.


----------



## zonly1

Gov't thinks it can create demand in "going green" initiatives but fails to identify the market and competition as in China where they have lower production costs.  At least two companies come to mind, Solyndra and Green Vehicles.  Both took taxpayer money as in start up and filed bankruptcy.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Mini 14 said:


> Climate change is a political movement, not a scientific one.



Right. Its a massive world wide conspiracy started over 100 years ago by a scientist named Arrhenius. Got it.


----------



## editec

FWIW, I suspect there's big money to be made in the DISASTER RELIEF business.


----------



## westwall

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change is a political movement, not a scientific one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Its a massive world wide conspiracy started over 100 years ago by a scientist named Arrhenius. Got it.
Click to expand...






No, it started around 25 years ago when a group of lousy scientists figured out they could make money for doing a whole bunch of nuthin.  Then the energy companies found out they could trade carbon credits and make trillions for the production of nuthin, so the two joined forces and voila, you have the AGW movement in a nutshell.  What's funny is you clowns complain about the evil oil companies and you're doing their dirty work!

Too funny.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

westwall said:


> No, it started around 25 years ago when a group of lousy scientists figured out they could make money for doing a whole bunch of nuthin.  Then the energy companies found out they could trade carbon credits and make trillions for the production of nuthin, so the two joined forces and voila, you have the AGW movement in a nutshell.  What's funny is you clowns complain about the evil oil companies and you're doing their dirty work!
> 
> Too funny.


No. Actually is started in 1896.


> Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEQR-Fxqukf98SioIjuuQh2UkJAYQ&cad=rja



I'm sure you're familiar with it.

That's how far back the conspiracy goes.


----------



## editec

You want to invest in GREEN technology?

Plant a tree.

Best bang for the buck you'll ever get


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

editec said:


> You want to invest in GREEN technology?
> 
> Plant a tree.
> 
> Best bang for the buck you'll ever get



Can't really do too much with that.


----------



## whitehall

Old Rocks said:


> I know very little about investing, and who is and is not considered good advisors, but here is what one group has to say on investing and climate change.
> 
> Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change
> 
> Climate change increases uncertainty for long term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
> Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5 trillion.
> The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.
> Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8 trillion.
> Increasing allocation to climate sensitive assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
> Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
> Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
> The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.



Trillions at stake? You bet your ass(ets). We don't have time for the Obama administration paying off supporters with another half a billion taxpayer dollars in a fraudulent green jobs scheme. Go tell China that they need to worry about climate change and leave America alone to cope with the economic crisis.


----------



## westwall

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it started around 25 years ago when a group of lousy scientists figured out they could make money for doing a whole bunch of nuthin.  Then the energy companies found out they could trade carbon credits and make trillions for the production of nuthin, so the two joined forces and voila, you have the AGW movement in a nutshell.  What's funny is you clowns complain about the evil oil companies and you're doing their dirty work!
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Actually is started in 1896.
> 
> 
> 
> Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEQR-Fxqukf98SioIjuuQh2UkJAYQ&cad=rja
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're familiar with it.
> 
> That's how far back the conspiracy goes.
Click to expand...






No, I'm talking about the organised fraud that began back in the 1980's.  I understand you're considerably younger than I so I understand your lack of knowledge in that realm.


----------



## westwall

editec said:


> You want to invest in GREEN technology?
> 
> Plant a tree.
> 
> Best bang for the buck you'll ever get







Think globally, act locally!  It's as valid today as it was way back when.


----------



## FactFinder

*Investment and climate change*

Looks like those who invested in carbon credits went bust.  They deserved every loss.


----------



## Vinson

I read this blog and i am agree this information.
This blog have wide information contain related to the investment and other topic.
I get more information and this information is beneficial for me and i want more information on this topic.
Thanks for sharing nice information.


----------

