Global Warming Investing

A Slew of News You Can’t Refuse

UN and the IPCC

This year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which shared the Nobel with Al Gore--released three major documents chronicling the intricate details, implications and possible solutions to climate change.

Bottom line: Climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activity and if nothing is done there will catastrophic environmental, human and economic consequences.

Now their findings, based on the expert opinion of about 2,500 scientists, are being condensed into a shortened version that will be used by the world’s leading policymakers at summit in Bali starting December 3 to discuss the next step in combating climate change.

The ultimate goal of the meeting is to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Coincidentally, one of the two major industrialized nations that didn’t ratify Kyoto, Australia, may be on board by the time the Bali meeting comes to pass.

Australia’s Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, said today he would personally attend the meeting and sign the Kyoto pact if he wins this weekend’s parliamentary elections. Rudd added that fighting catastrophic climate change would be one of his top priorities.

That would leave just one lonely industrialized country stubbornly refusing to sign Kyoto. And speaking of stubborn:

Bush Struck Down in Court

Last week, a federal appeals court harshly dismissed Bush’s new pollution standards for SUVs, pickup trucks and vans, ordering the administration to prepare a new, tougher plan for vehicle emissions.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals couldn’t figure out why trucks are allowed to pollute more than cars or why heavier commuter trucks weren’t included, among other things. The court also concluded that the administration didn’t properly assess greenhouse gas emissions when it set new minimum miles-per-gallon requirements.

Can I get a special interest witness?

But as always, Big Auto had excuses and complaints. “Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made toward increasing fleet-wide fuel economy,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

They’d get more done if they stopped bitching and just did it.

In Japan, some cars are required to get in excess of 48 miles per gallon (mpg). So it can be done.

Maybe that’s why California Attorney General Jerry Brown called raising the efficiency standards a mere one mpg “pathetic and appalling.” He’s right.

The lead judge in the matter, Betty Fletcher, also questioned why the administration failed to consider the numerous benefits of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with increased fuel efficiency. She made sure to note that the administration “did, however, include an analysis of the employment and sales impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers.”

She also didn’t understand why Bush refused to include new standards for trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, like the Hummer H2 and the Ford F250.

Can I get another witness?

I’ll call Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who said, “This historic ruling vindicates our fight against fuel economy standards that are a complete sham and a gift to the auto industry.”

What ever happened to what’s best for the citizens? Certainly we’d like to go further on a gallon of gas. Especially in a world of . . .

Runaway Energy Demand

Also last week, the Financial Times (FT) broke a story entitled, “Welcome to a World of Runaway Energy Demand”--an official invitation to anyone who’s still in the dark on this issue.

The article is a summary of the International Energy Agency’s latest World Energy Outlook, and paints a pretty grim picture of the world’s energy economy.

Here, then, are a few of the findings highlighted in that report:

Without policy change, world energy demand will be 50% higher in 2030 than it is today. China and India would account for 45% of that growth. And you thought things were bad today.

OPEC’s share of the world oil market climbs from 42% to 52%, and “a supply-side crunch in the period to 2015 involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices cannot be ruled out.”

A $22 trillion investment (about half of 2006 gross world product) is needed to make sure energy supply infrastructure can meet rising demand over the next 25 years.

Without policy change, global CO2 emissions will jump 57% between 2005 and 2030.

A growing proportion of the energy vital for so-called civilized life comes from a few, sometimes increasingly hostile, suppliers. OPEC’s revenues are forecast to triple for the period between 2002 and 2007.

Bottom line, according to the FT article:

“It is simple: commercial energy is the staff of our contemporary life. As demand for energy rises, nothing is more important than ensuring increased supply and efficient use, while curbing environmental damage. Today’s high prices are a start. Fundamental innovation and high prices on greenhouse gas emissions must follow.”

In the Meantime . . .

According to a new analysis of the energy market, this year will be another record-breaker for venture capital investment in the clean-tech sector.

That’s because with such high, and perpetually rising, energy prices, alternatives are increasingly appealing on a financial basis.

And then there’s the climate angle. Companies--and I’m talking big companies--are turning increasingly sycophantic toward the public’s perception of their level of greenness.

They are trying to reduce and offset their carbon footprints, and are purchasing and investing in renewable energy.

This increased willingness to go green, coupled with a drastic energy crisis in the coming years, has its implications.

One of them is sweeping and continued investment in clean technologies, regardless of individual beliefs on the semantics, causes, or even the reality of climate change.

We need to use less energy. We need to become more efficient. We need to focus on becoming energy independent. We need to pollute less.

These things are not debatable. They are all are inherently good for individuals, nations and the world.

Why not make some money while doing it?

That’s exactly what we’re doing at Green Chip. Our current portfolio is up over 64%, fueled only by clean energy, water and organic companies.

Click here to join the thousands who are profiting from this revolution.

Until next time,

Nick