Essay by Eric Worrall
Why aren’t more fund managers following NOAA Chief Scientist Sarah Kapnick’s advice, and getting in on the ground floor of the green investment opportunities of tomorrow?
If your fund wants to stop climate change, why did it buy Microsoft?
Are the “sustainable” investment funds rushing the ASX really different to regular funds?
Aaron Patrick Senior correspondent
Apr 28, 2023 – 5.00am
One of the most sought-after skills in global investing is the ability to uncover the climate economy’s equivalent of the next Microsoft or Alibaba.
But investors hoping to participate in what has been dubbed the greatest business opportunity since the world wide web might be surprised their fund managers are investing in Microsoft and Alibaba, and other stocks-of-yesterday that have little direct connection to climate change.
Now chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Kapnick advised investors to seek out technologies at the forefront of science. Her suggestions included soilless farming, the manufacture of jet fuel from biological waste, and the large-scale sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Yet, despite the flow of money, the MSCI World Climate Action Index – a list of leading “climate transition” companies – fell 21 per cent in 2022, while the world’s share markets fell 18 per cent overall.
…Read more: https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/if-your-fund-wants-to-stop-climate-change-why-did-it-buy-microsoft-20230420-p5d21a
Sarah Kapnick’s advice is available here.
Investing in vertical farming. Yep. That will make me rich.
Most of those items as far as I can tell are only opportunities so long as the government subsidises them. A few, like improved batteries, are intractable problems which are already well covered by existing players.
My question, where is the alleged financial opportunity for investors? For example, what is the financial gain for investors if they finance the construction of infrastructure to “mechanically sequester carbon”?
Such economically useless activities only make sense so long as a gullible politician is paying for them. And that by definition makes such investment high risk, because all it takes to wipe out the value of such investments is the election of a Reagan style government, whose leaders make it a priority to put a big red pen stroke through every scrap of wasteful government expenditure they can identify.
You know, some of those ideas might–might–turn out to be profitable in the very long run. but only after they have lost lots of money trying to find the one technology that actually works and is profitable. That is the way start-ups work. However, those types of investments are not right for people who actually want to build a nest egg for a retirement in the not too terribly distant future.
With all due respect to Ms. Kapnick; if she knew how the market works and where to invest profitably, she would not work for the government.
That seems like about the right level of respect due.
Her investment advice reflects some one who has a generous government-guaranteed pension.
A few ‘green’ financial facts that NOAA’s science head does not want you to know:
Green investment opportunities are financial suicide no matter what NOAA says.
The same NOAA whose climate models have obvious major problems. The same NOAA that tampers with land surface temperature records to manufacture warming in agreement with their faulty models, and Karlized SST.
Her scientific specialty is decadal weather prediction. Haha haha
Maybe they’re using the predictive power of climate models to identify investment opportunities…
If that were possible, I wouldn’t need an investment advisor.
Where the government has subsidized, I bet the initial investors did ok. Not so much for people like you and me.
It’s not just Siemens Gamesa that is in trouble. All of Europe’s 5 wind turbine manufacturers have been operating at a loss for some time now and Wind Europe has recently admitted “we simply don’t have enough factories and infrastructure today to build and install the volumes Europe wants”. (Press release 16th March 2023)
The industry has been pleading with the European Commission for more subsidies for two years.
Maybe they just can’t get enough of that ‘free’ wind energy?
It helps to have an inside tip line on subsidies, grant program emphasis, bailout priorities, cool job prospects for job hopping, and upcoming regulatory slants for implementation of vague Congressional intent.
“and the large-scale sequestration of carbon dioxide.”
Which is a massive cost, with zero profit options, even with government subsidies.
It produces absolutely nothing.
No thanks. !
In the UK it was notable that as soon as the taxpayer cash was turned off, Shell dumped their carbon capture project while to appease the eco-fascists they described it as a good opportunity. Hmmm…..I guess only eco-fascists would have fallen for that one.
What coat, jacket, and sweater business does she recommend? Where in China is it and how many guard towers surround the buildings?
Investing 101 for dummies.
Don’t you mean by dummies?
Whatever. By and for.
‘…all it takes to wipe out the value of such investments is the election of a Reagan style government…’
‘Style’ might be the correct word. I don’t recall Reagan cutting back on Federal spending – the newly formed and unconstitutional Department of Education should have been an easy target.
If the greenies want to put an end to denialism and dissention, all they need do is sequester half of the carbon in the atmosphere. Then, at 0.02% or less, photosynthesis can no longer happen in most plants, and any life forms dependent on plant life (*cough* humanity *cough*) will vanish.
Fortunately at current sea surface temperatures there’s no way that they could get the atmosphere much below 290ppm. Well, not that they are likely to be able to reduce it at all, but below 290ppm, the oceans would outgas as quickly as they sequester. There’s so much CO2 in the ocean.
Well, at least then, we wouldn’t have to listen to them yapping about how mankind is ruining the planet.
Invest in my new high-tech fund.
Step 1. Use our incoming capital to invent a time machine.
Step 2. Write down the best daily performers in a spreadsheet.
Step 3. Go back in time and day trade all of the best stocks. I guarantee a 30,000% annual ROI, shortly after we perfect Step 1.
My plan is at least as viable as many of the Green Nude Eel plans!
Spot on clip, Rich!
“Now chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Kapnick advised investors to….”
Taking investment advice from a government ‘scientist’ is like taking swimming lessons from the fastest transvestite on the women’s swimming team. As Dr Fauci has proven endlessly, government bureaucratic ‘scientists’ are usually wrong more than they’re right. There’s something about a bureaucracy that tends to foster this.
When those making the decisions do not share in the consequences when they are wrong, I can think of fewer dumb ideas.
Now, now, as a former water safety instructor, you can take swimming lessons from most anybody who really knows how to swim. Now, winning a competitive swimming race is a different matter, and there you might not want to take advice. Full disclosure–I was a really slow swimmer–great form, poor speed.
I agree on Dr. Fauci’s advice. I would not trust him in any medical advice at this point.
It’s “Administration” not “Association.”
“For example, what is the financial gain for investors if they finance the construction of infrastructure to “mechanically sequester carbon”?”
Consider how well ExxonMobil stock has been doing. They are into carbon capture and storage (CCS) bigly. So one may choose an oil company as a solid investment, for the obvious reason that reliable hydrocarbon fuels are necessary and will remain so. The climate virtue signaling comes along for the ride. Oh, and did Exxon Know that the climate modification value of CCS will never be reliably distinguished from zero? I can’t see how they could have missed that obvious point. So as a sideline to fossil fuels they are now marketing a product, with government support, that has no confirmed value. It’s insane, but there is a demand.
Disclosure: Yes, I own some XOM shares.
One more thing. It should be noted that Dr. Kapnick worked for JP Morgan at the time the table of climate change investments was posted.
Consider how well ExxonMobil stock has been doing. They are into carbon capture and storage (CCS) bigly. So one may choose an oil company as a solid investment, for the obvious reason that reliable hydrocarbon fuels are necessary and will remain so. The climate virtue signaling comes along for the ride.
Correct. Its the FF part of the business that makes the money. The “green” stuff is there to make all the luvvies feel good.
Imagine trying to start a business today in the world of ESG?
Could you have imagined decades ago being required to include in your business plan your potential contribution to the amount of Co2 in the planet’s atmosphere? Further how will your company be “net-zero” by a mandated date?
Companies today must earn a “social licence” a set of criteria dictated to them by whom? How does one operate in a climate of forced ethics? For answrs you will nee to ask the latest addition to the c suite. The CSO – Chief Sustainability Officer..
I also hold Exxon Mobil and am happy with their performance. Mostly because they sell oil and lots of it.
In my time, I’ve been in on that (in)famous ground floor. Usually, I end up sitting on it or eventually falling through it into the basement.
I believe the whole concept of carbon capture and sequestration is quite ridiculous.
OTOH, the Teamsters built a pretty good business capturing trash and burying it in the ground 🙂
The government needs to stop picking winners and losers. Government should not prop up failing business.
So no government intervention in business? No tax breaks for big corporations?
give some examples of tax breaks for big corporations you don’t like and explain what’s wrong with those breaks
The following “joke” is so old that I’ve completely forgotten its original source.
Why is it that when the government gets to pick the winners and the losers they inevitably end up picking the losers ?
Many people are blind to changing technology, thankfully not all. My nose is well proven–I called the ink-jet printer several years before it made a commercial appearance. (Each micro dot in a character is individually heated up and ejected by the steam, hard to believe.)
The search for cold fusion did not yield it but it did give a stunning new source of energy. It revealed the Hydrino which is a different state of atomic hydrogen where the electron comes in closer to the proton releasing massive energy as light and heat. With free samples on offer to the unis its hard to call it chicanery.
There is argument about the hydrino but many uni investigations have validated the spectrographs. These also have lines showing the hydrino may be the “dark matter”.
See the very detailed documentation on https://brilliantlightpower.com/
Working demos are shown there as well as plans and costings They are at the point of seeking commercial producers. The units don’t need exotic materials and water can provide the hydrogen. The units can produce electricty directly using an integrated special voltaic cell. The DC output can be handled by conventional existing gear.
Uses extend to ships, aircraft, trains, buses and homes. farms or industry or plant. Cars are a plus too as batteries are not used. These are all featured on the website. Their Team has a wealth of knowledge and has spent $USD120M over 20 years so far.
This gives hope to the world Grids will not be required. Power for a farm will be made on site.. Mimimal hazards and even a hospital in remote Africa could have its own power plant!
Story tip (maybe).
Financial advice from a government employee with no financial oversight from the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Now there’s a class action waiting to happen.
“Why aren’t more fund managers following NOAA Chief Scientist Sarah Kapnick’s advice, and getting in on the ground floor of the green investment opportunities of tomorrow?”
no need to when governments are investing countless trillions in those industries- if those industries really were good investments, governments wouldn’t have to invest any money into them
She didn’t tell us how much of HER money she’s invested in green industries. She should lead the way and make sure ALL of her pension funds go into them.
The utility of advice from people who don’t live in the real world is that it gives us guidance on what not to do.
You can see this one coming. Exxon will lower its tax bill with carbon sequestration tax credits and then get attacked for having such a low corporate tax rate by the Party that engineered and passed the tax credit in the first place.
Why do these loons look like a cross between Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi–not to mention Elizabeth Warren (Pocahanas).
She BLARES her colossal ignorance right off the bat… NOBODY can “stop climate change”.