rikki
07-26-2010, 05:20 PM
Hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, in his summer newsletter (http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf), offers a 5-minute lesson in global warming, concluding, "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it."
He says the rise in CO2 in correlation with the industrial age is "certain and straightforward" and the warming effect "just physics." He does risk analysis on the uncertainty in predicted impacts and recognizes that the costs of immediate action are dwarfed by the risks of inaction. He notes that the biggest risk is loss of biodiversity, but hesitates to put a value on that because "it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless."
He ridicules those who believe scientists worldwide are engaged in a conspiracy and instead offers a more plausible conspiracy: "fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds
of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results." He wonders, "Why are we even arguing this issue?" and asks of the obfuscators, "Have they no grandchildren?"
Since the Senate has refused to pass climate legislation, you have to wonder whether our corporate-bought representatives believe America has a future.
He says the rise in CO2 in correlation with the industrial age is "certain and straightforward" and the warming effect "just physics." He does risk analysis on the uncertainty in predicted impacts and recognizes that the costs of immediate action are dwarfed by the risks of inaction. He notes that the biggest risk is loss of biodiversity, but hesitates to put a value on that because "it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless."
He ridicules those who believe scientists worldwide are engaged in a conspiracy and instead offers a more plausible conspiracy: "fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds
of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results." He wonders, "Why are we even arguing this issue?" and asks of the obfuscators, "Have they no grandchildren?"
Since the Senate has refused to pass climate legislation, you have to wonder whether our corporate-bought representatives believe America has a future.