Investment Implications of ClimateGate

A huge scandal is brewing in climate science. You can read about it in my companion post, Fear and Loathing in Global Warming. It suggest a small cabal at the center of climate science has engaged in a massive fraud on the rest of us. Since this cabal are the keepers of the data, it calls into question the climate record. Satellite data (which does run through their hands) has been diverging from their data, showing a ten year cooling trend that may be accelerating down. For purposes of this blog, how might this affect markets and investing?

I scanned the blogosphere this morning and saw little thinking on this so far. James Delingpole in British Telegraph thinks it will put the kabash on alternative energy investments: "If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW."

This is plausible since the scandal will make it improbable that any grandiose climate treaty passes, and unlikely that the Cap & Trade bill gets through the Senate. John McCain (remember him?) had already reversed his support of a climate bill, and will most likely now put his energy into killing it. Without either subsidies or increased costs on traditional energy, it will be extremely hard for alt energy to get established. Our experience form the '80s is when the subsidies subside, the projects die. 

A lot of alt energy funding is in the pipeline, however, and it is unlikely it gets re-directed. This also happened in the '80s, where investment continued to get poured into alt energy like the SynFuels Corporation and Solar-Thermal plants in the desert; but by the early '90s those efforts had been fully funded by those prior commitments, and could not get continued investment. Kerplunk.

An early test of this thesis may happen early next year: Tesla motors is planning to file to go IPO. Tesla is a high profile maker of all-electric cars. (Note: I have an indirect interest in Tesla through a venture fund investment, and would welcome a successful IPO.) Tesla is following the successful IPO of A123, an electric car battery maker.

In general, however, if the subsidized investments like wind, biofuels and solar fade, what should attract more funding are the hard economic alternatives, essentially four:

1. Nukes (especially more reactors in existing plants - fewer permit issues)
2. Geothermal (cost competitive today and under-exploited)
3. Natural gas (think: fuel cells in vehicles)
4. Conservation and energy management

A broader implication of the scandal may be to undermine support for the progressive agenda being pushed by Obama. Obama has identified himself with climate change and therefore with association to the climate cabal. ClimateGate will remove the pretenses that anchor the progressive argument - that interference in almost all aspects of human activity is justified to prevent runaway global warming.(Don't think that is the agenda? Check this example out.)

In struggling to get the healthcare bill passed (key vote today), all his early pretense of 'bending the cost curve' has gone away. Maybe he gets a jobs bill passed, but after healthcare, it now appears his agenda will be largely stillborn. Like scales from our eyes, the progressive pretenses are falling away.

This change should be long-term bullish as it should reduce the interference in the private economy and reduce future increases in already-huge Federal deficits. In the short run it should throw uncertainty back into the market.

Comments

[David Stern]

This e-mail scandal is nonsense. Some out of context statements in stolen e-mails being blown out of proportion. It's a bad idea to invest on that basis.

[Inside Job]

I don't think those e-mails were stolen so much as leaked by someone on the inside who couldn't put up with the lying any more. Glad to see this trash exposed.

But, out of curiosity, what is the proper scientific context for statements about fudging data, expressing dismay that the data doesn't fit the desired conclusion and using "tricks" to get the data to look right? I seem to have missed those methodological "enhancements" to science.

[Hockthefarm]

First off, it is great news for the planet if this has been a children's scam all along.

What doesn't make sense to me is how one little group is holding all the data and could have that much global impact.

Something just doesn't add up yet.

[Bill C]

Yelnick, The vote tonight was actually not that important. There will be another chance to stop whatever bill that comes out of the conference committee and Blanche Lincoln has spoken out tonight that she will not vote for cloture on any bill that includes a public option.

Also, Obama has been getting skewered, from the left, on SNL lately. Imagine how bad things will get for him if we are really in a B wave rally? Phew.

[yelnick]

Hock, the reason a little cabal has this much influence is the progressive movement has staked so much on the ability to regulate a broad range of human activity under the guise of controlling carbon. The EPA is aching to get their regulations out!

The cabal has the support of a huge number of constituents with a huge amount of money at stake. Just watch how GE has cozied up to Obama in order to sell turbines. This is not about science, it is about money and power. And hence the constituents engage in a huge game to promote the cabal and denounce the opposition. When do you recall a science issue being laced with so much rhetoric? Claims of consensus are trumpeted, the opposition is demonized, school kids are made to mope about polar bears, carbon consciousness is ever present, etc.

And in all of this the science does not allow itself to be debated or challenged. When Al Gore spoke recently at Congress, the former Science Minster for Thatcher was supposed to speak too. He flew to DC and then was refused an audience so as not to undermine the Goracle's remarks. The emails are rife with plots to exclude dissenters, to ostracize doubters, to undermine contrary evidence.

This ain't the search for truth.

[vipul garg]

Michael
"Gold is heading higher because for the first time in 2 decades, Central Banks are no longer sellers of Gold, but buyers. This is a huge fundamental macro-shift that has been lost on many."

gold has been in a persisitent uptrend since 2001-02.if central banks buying is such a macro-shift now , then what was causing the uptrend till now.

[Hockthefarm]

Yelnick: "This ain't the search for truth."

It is sure looking that way and frankly would just confirm what we already know about the success of government in free market economies. The sheer size and number of unknowns have always made weather a good topic for the bull chitters.

I do like the switch to NG however. If all power came from NG starting tomorrow, we would exhaust current supplies in 70 years. So let's call it a 100 year local supply. Apparently Walmart is scheduled to switch from diesel in the next year or two.

I wonder how this whole thing will impact the switch to NG? For Walmart, the switch would improve their carbon footprint by 30%. We shall see. It ain't over til it's over I guess.

Hock

[yelnick]

Hoch, I cannot see the subsidies for uneconomic alt energy persisting, even as the pipeline of stimulus rolls forward. Also it seems that Obama has signaled he will try to repurpose TARP money and some of the unspent Stimulus for a jobs program, rather than ask for new spending. And given the climategate, cap&trade looks dead. So whether my list is the right one, some restructuring of smart cleantech investing is in order. Biofuels were the rage a few years ago and are a dead category.

[Hockthefarm]

I guess my point is that we have the natural gas to drive the energy needs of the country for the next 100 years.

What we don't have is the infrastructure to deploy it. However, pipelines tend to follow highways. For example, gas pipelines from The Four Corners to CA are routed close to highways, so infrastructure costs would be reasonable.

Energy costs, nat gas verses crude, tend to follow each other (unlike now).

Big job numbers here to say nothing of the impact on current account.

H