Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner

Kh v dt.png

Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual. There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power? Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.

Summary

Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.

Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.

Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.

The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.

Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.

Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.

Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.

In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."

There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.

None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.

In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.

In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.

Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.

Sources

You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.

Forbes, Trump Plans To Rescind Funds For IRA Law’s Climate Provisions, But May Keep Drug Price Measures, by Joshua P. Cohen, Sept. 9, 2024.
Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
Bloomberg, Trump 2.0 Climate Tipping Points: A guide to what a second Trump White House can—and can't—do to the American effort to slow global warming, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Sept. 30, 2024.
Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
New York Times, Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump, by Coral DavenportLisa Friedman and Christopher Flavelle, published Aug. 1, 2021, updated Sept. 20, 2021
Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
Google: New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power, by Michael Terrell, Oct. 15, 2024, and Google's The Corporate Role in Accelerating Advanced Clean Electricity Technologies, Sept. 2023.
The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
Grid Brief: What Was Said About Energy During the VP Debate, JD Vance and Tim Walz Discuss Energy and Climate During VP Debate, by Jeff Luse, Oct. 2, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Sea levels are already rising faster per year than Trump claims they might rise over "next 497 years', by Daniel Dale, June 29, 2024.
CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, YPCCC's Resources on Climate in the 2024 U.S. General Election, by Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Jennifer Carman, Jennifer Marlon, John Kotcher, Seth Rosenthal and Joshua Low, Oct. 8, 2024.
SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
Power Magazine, The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here's a Detailed Breakdown by Sonal Patel, June 20, 2024
Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.

February 27, 2024

Deviations from the abnormal to the freakish

David Gelles bravely titles his Climate Forward article in the New York Times, "Scientists are Freaking Our About Ocean Temperatures." It would have been every bit as accurate, but possibly less acceptable, if he had said scientists are freaking out about climate change or global warming rather than "ocean temperatures." But, since much of the warming that we're causing is being absorbed by the oceans, ocean temperatures are a proxy for global warming. They took a gob-smacking leap up this year, shifting the historic pattern of more gradual increases.

This astonishing leap follows a record hot January and one of the longest runs of record-breaking summer temperatures the world has ever seen (shown in the above chart in pale orange). As a function of this, ocean temperatures are now in unknown territory, as shown by the red line in the graph above, reflecting readings for 2024.

Scientists have hypotheses as to what might have caused such a dramatic shift. To understand some of what the world's top scientists are thinking, we recommend you read "Global warming in the pipeline," by James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons and other scientists, published in September 2023 by Oxford University Press, if you are capable of following deeply scientific, dense analysis. Alternatively, Dr. Hansen and his CSAS team sent a thank you memo to supporters in February, with something of a summary of the conclusion from the Pipeline paper. You can read this entire memo here, but we quote the following paragraph:

In Pipeline, among other things, we show that climate sensitivity is higher than IPCC’s best estimate and human-made aerosols are a larger climate forcing that is driving global warming acceleration. A stunning global change now underway is darkening of Earth (Fig. 1). Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) decreased since 2015 by an amount that has an effect on global temperature equivalent to a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm. This darkening has doubled Earth’s energy imbalance and thrown into a cocked hat official claims about achieving climate targets. These facts make it more difficult, but not impossible, to secure a propitious climate for future generations.

Gelles also tries to answer the question of what's driving the heat. He writes: "Global warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, has been driving up global temperatures on land and in the sea for decades now. Over the past year, worldwide average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, higher than before the industrial age. New data from a variety of sources has led some climate scientists to suggest that global warming is accelerating." And since oceans absorb most of the added heat near the earth's surface, they have been steadily warming for years. Even so, data collected in the past year has been shocking to those who have been following the trends. It's pretty much "off the charts."

[Aside: The above graphic provides a powerful visualization of the acceleration of warming that is now happening. We appreciate that this news can be deeply disturbing on many levels, including because we've long been led to believe that it would take a lot longer for the severe heating effects of climate change to be felt. That may no longer be true, although clearly scientists don't fully know how all of the climate feedback loops work. We are deeply worried that we will see a year in which these super warm oceans turbo-charge the already record-breaking hurricane seasons that we've seen coming from the Atlantic in recent years. We post this information, so more people can realize just what unprecedented territory we are in. End Aside.]

THINGS YOU CAN DO

Should you be motivated to do more than you've done before to tackle climate, here's our list:

Review this listing of pronuclear nonprofits, influencers, artists and experts and support efforts to spread the word about the benefits of nuclear power.
Review Bank of America's analysts' report, "The Nuclear Necessity," to get ideas on public market investment options.
For managed fund offerings, we think Parnassus Investments represents the best of the ESG-focused sustainability public fund options we've seen.
Lastly, Nucleation offers a low-cost venture capital fund option, which, while higher risk, is one of the most impactful ways to help accelerate the commercialization of innovative solutions. We are clearly biased but, as Vinod Khosla has remarked about venture investing, “You only lose 1x your money if you fail, but if you succeed, you can make 100x.”

Read more at New York Times, "Scientists Are Freaking Out About Ocean Temperatures: "It's like an omen of the future," by David Gelles, Feb. 27, 2024.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Climate mayhem, Extreme weather, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

January 20, 2024

The A, B, and especially C’s of ESG

By Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner

ESG investing is the largest and most profound global trend happening in the capital markets. Its popularity points to the global recognition that investors should and do have an important role to play in helping to solve environmental, social and other issues that have put the planet on a bad trajectory. In fact, no business can survive without investor support so businesses do care to meet investors' demands. Yet, as structured, ESG is not working to fulfill investors' true underlying needs or produce measurable objectives. The good news: there is an easy fix, when we start with "C," assessing climate impacts.

Like many things today, an initiative based upon a meaningful and important purpose, has become mired in controversy. Like the Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) movement that preceded it, ESG (an acronym for rating and selecting companies based upon their environmental, social and governance performance) has emerged to enable investors to focus their investments on companies that are taking care to behave more morally and responsibly vis-a-vis the environment, their employees, their shareholders, their suppliers, their communities and the climate. Many of these types of good corporate behaviors previously went unreported. What's become clear to investors is that short-term profiteering by managers may appear to be beneficial for shareholders but often may not be. It can conflict with what we know are looming issues which need action. Thus, sometimes taking a longer-term view and making corresponding sacrifices or investments that actually reduce overall risks can vastly improve longer-term enterprise value.

ESG has emerged to identify, elevate and reward companies which invest in doing what is right, even if such actions reduce returns in the short-term. It is intended to broaden the metrics on which corporations report information, so investors can make better informed decisions and invest in companies taking ethical actions, treating employees, suppliers and their communities fairly and protecting the environment—much of which costs more but which can reduce risks and other future costs, including litigation, public opposition or climate impacts.

While collecting data to make this type of assessment might seem uncontroversial, traditionally company management was required to focus on meeting only one goal: maximizing shareholder value. Because actions that affect long term enterprise value are often difficult to quantify, management reports have traditionally focused on easier t omeasure financial metrics like Price/Earnings ratios and quarterly profit trends. Deviating from the objective of maximizing per share profits could and often did result in shareholder lawsuits, if management took even smart and common sense approaches which reflected a community value, but which did not clearly improve shareholder value.

Fortunately, in 2019, under the leadership of Jamie Dimon, the Business Roundtable officially changed their statement of purpose and so businesses now broadly recognize that they are also accountable to their employees, suppliers and communities — constituents whose needs and actions can also impact the bottom line — but there is no consensus as to exactly how much or how little is enough and companies employ widely diverging approaches. ESG is now a way that investors can better discern the differences and reward companies that are acting responsibly on environmental, social and governance issues. Unfortunately, it is not working very well.

What ESG Currently Is

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance published an article entitled ESG Ratings: A Compass without Direction which aptly summarizes the main issues with ESG as it currently is. The authors describe their findings as follows: "We find that while ESG ratings providers may convey important insights into the nonfinancial impact of companies, significant shortcomings exist in their objectives, methodologies, and incentives which detract from the informativeness of their assessments."

Critically, there's a significant dichotomy between what people commonly think ESG is supposed to indicate and what it actually indicates. Most people believe that an ESG score reflects a company's positive impact on the environment and stakeholders beyond its shareholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and local communities as well as the environment—a type of "Doing Good" metric which would tend to produce more shareholder value in the long run. In actuality, most ESG raters are assessing a company for the existence or absence of risk factors that could impact the future value of the company, such as the risk of discrimination in hiring or the risk of climate change on the supply chain. This is more of a "Risk Reduction" approach to data collection.

From an investment manager point of view, any time you can get meaningful information about a company's actions and potential future value, you are generally willing to pay for that—especially when your clients are clamoring for more sustainable investment options and are willing to pay more. Thus, there are now a plethora of third-party ESG rating services working to provide ESG data for a fee and a very large majority of impact-focused investment professionals are using these services to provide more options for clients. But, sadly, the entire space, which is still in its infancy, is chaotic and incoherent.

Studies show very low correlations across ESG ratings providers in total scores as well as across the three distinct components of "E," "S," and "G." Not only isn't there agreement about what an ESG score reflects, there is no standardization in the types of data collected or used and no consistency to the methodologies of collecting, assessing or prioritizing within or across categories. Thus, not only are ESG ratings badly correlated with environmental and social outcomes, the relationship between ESG ratings and financial performance is also uncertain. Those investing in ESG-type funds will typically pay more in fees for having accessed ESG data but they will generally get just equivalent or worse performance.

High and rising demand for ESG information has caused ESG-type rating services and funds to become profit centers, even as the quality, consistency and efficacy of the ratings has failed to provide meaningful results. At the moment, in addition to all of the inherent confusion as to what data matters, how to collect it, how to assess it and then how combine it with many other data points into a meaningful score, there is also the problem of greenwashing. Greenwashing is the deliberate efforts by some companies to game the system and try to obtain better ratings and scores than they probably deserve.

Which points to a growing problem in the ESG space. Companies control what data they will share with which rating groups, creating an inherent ability for companies to influence their scores by refusing to give their data to groups that don't rate them highly. This has rendered the existing ESG industry scores almost meaningless, since many of these raters are dependent upon the good will with the companies they are rating to get the data they need.

There is no better example how badly ESG is doing for guiding investors to more ethical and sustainable companies than when the S&P Sustainability Index did its rebalancing in May 2022. At that juncture, the S&P ESG team ejected Tesla (the largest EV car maker and one of the most successful climate companies on the planet) from the Index but welcomed ExxonMobil (a renowned climate villain), prompting Elon Musk to call the S&P Sustainability Index a "scam."

This decision caused a broader uproar within the sector and forced Senior Director and Head of ESG Indices Margaret Dorn to publish an explanation. Not only was this shift a climate and ESG travesty but, in fact, the S&P's "delicate balancing act" revealed that ESG raters and ratings are meaningless for a whole host of reasons, predominantly because there is just too much data, too much manipulation, and not enough understanding of what really matters. ESG raters appear to be so lost in the trees, they have effectively lost sight of the forest, namely the critical issue that matters the most to investors: climate change.

corre

What ESG Isn't

Investors are looking to ESG ratings to enable them to invest in companies that are doing better on a wide range of areas but, most critically, are environmentally responsible, especially around reducing carbon emissions. For many, this means working to provide solutions along the lines outlined by the United Nationa's Sustainable Development Goals. ESG investors care to invest in companies which improve global sustainability and solve climate change.

There are plenty of dire human, environmental and governance problems—you could name dozens—but none that threaten to seriously and even permanently disrupt the planet, human society and economic order as much climate change, the forced heating of our climate caused by burning fossil fuels. This crisis dwarfs everything.

So, while it may be troubling that there are reports of a toxic "bro" culture at Tesla, every single day, Tesla ships electric vehicles that enable people to stop purchasing and burning fossil fuels, which is the primary driver of climate change. In stark contrast, every single day ExxonMobil strives to greenwash their aspiration to keep selling more and more fossil fuels for as long as they possibly can—threatening not just human survival but that of all species and potentially our well-functioning societies, which could effectively wipe out the concept of wealth as we know it.

Shockingly, ESG as it is currently designed doesn't enable either the experts or investors to clearly assess companies on the single most important metric of sustainable performance—whether the company contributes to climate change or if they provide solutions to climate change. The average ESG investor, however, thinks that this is primarily what ESG does. Clearly, if ExxonMobil is rated highly but Tesla is not, ESG is not just meaningless, it is actually misleading for the average impact investor.

Fortunately, in order to fix this problem, ESG doesn't need to change that much, it just needs to make a small, relatively easy modification, which will then substantially improve its effectiveness and performance and begin to have a truly beneficial impact on humanity's ability to invest "sustainability." I propose a very basic approach for doing that below.

ESG Can Easily Be Fixed: Start all ratings with a "C" assessment

(Click to enlarge.)

As those concerned about what's happening with our climate saw, 2023 experienced a succession of seven record-shattering and "gobsmackingly bananas" (in the words of two climate scientists) hottest months on record. Not surprisingly, 2023 was also a record-breaker for climate disasters in the U.S. and around the globe, which have cost humanity billions annually. The bill for extreme climate disasters in the U.S. since 1980 now totals over $2 trillion and growing. Hundreds of millions of people are already being affected and/or displaced by the extreme weather events resulting from burning fossil fuels and allowing the CO2 pollution to escape into the atmosphere. These climate events are impacting the global economy, national security, geopolitics, businesses and politics in a range of ways but especially by increasing over systems risk.

(Click to enlarge)

Not surprisingly, at COP 28 in December, 198 nations gathered in the United Arab Emirates and finally agreed that we need to "transition away from fossil fuels." Though fossil fuel exporting nations like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq fought hard against adopting the specific words "phasing out fossil fuels," this is a pointless distinction, since it is abundantly clear that humanity needs to stop using fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible, whether transitioned or phased out. The climate is so bad, even Middle Eastern countries, whose primary source of revenue is fossil fuels, finally acknowledged what we've known for a very long time: only by eliminating the use of fossil fuels will we start to turn the tide against our worsening climate change and the dire ecologic and economic crisis that it threatens.

Against this backdrop and in light of the fact that ESG analyses and ratings are clearly still in "beta," we believe that ESG raters could make a very minor modification and start to have a much more significant impact. Simply by commencing vetting with one very simple sorting action, they would improve the coherence of ESG ratings by a lot. Prior to applying the rankings from hundreds of data points amassed regarding a plethora of corporate actions, ESG needs to divvy up the universe of companies into three distinct buckets: Climate Villains, Climate Neutral companies and Climate Heroes. This is a very easy distinction to make. Climate villains are those that are actively extracting, refining or selling virgin fossil fuel products or related services. Climate neutral companies are those that doing other business and are merely energy customers. Climate heroes are those companies which are actively developing and/or delivering key solutions to climate change (unrelated to ongoing fossil fuels operations), like low-carbon and carbon-free energy such as nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal and wave power; providing electrification support, such as with electric vehicles, heat pumps, charging stations and energy efficiency; and lastly carbon management, including carbon capture, carbon utilization and carbon sequestration (so long as unrelated to fossil fuel operations).

Once this vetting process has been done, then all of the current ESG metrics can then be assessed for more comparative performance relative to a company's other environmental, social and governance risks. But the top line assessment will easily enable every ESG-rated fund to exclude all Climate Villains. ESG funds will then be able to select their choices of best-performing companies from the other two categories for a mix of risk and return characteristics and use whatever type of analyses they wish. Investors will then have a very clear sense of what the composition of the fund is, across these three categories. Companies whose business is actively extracting, refining, distributing or selling fossil fuel products or services that cause climate change will likely still be included in standard, non-ESG funds, of course, but even these funds would easily be assessed for their climate impacts. Such funds could also be assessed for their ESG conformance, relative to other similar funds. But with this big bucket approach, no company or fund would be able to manipulate their "S" or "G" ratings in such a way as to feign that they are environmentally sustainable or acting responsibly relative to climate risk or sustainable development goals, when they are not, which is what impact investors mostly care about.

Summary

Despite inconsistencies in and controversy over ESG, we believe that demand for ESG research and investment vehicles remains strong largely because of concerns about climate change. Investors demand greater clarity about which businesses have more sustainable and ethical business approaches and want to own those and not companies shirking their responsibilities to future generations. Although ESG is in a nascent and chaotic state and not currently delivering the data ESG investors really need, a simple modification will be enough to ensure that more investor capital is directed into sustainable ventures.

Here's how we think it can work.

Prior to running the current slate of ESG assessments, each company should be given a climate score: "C Minus" is given to "Climate Villains," companies whose products and services are contributing to climate change, namely the fossil fuel extraction, refinement, distribution and sales companies that are responsible for contributing millions of tons of carbon emissions. Companies that not involved with climate-impacting businesses (such as those in healthcare, education, textiles, manufacturing, etc.) would be deemed "Climate Neutral" and get a straight "C" since their business is not directly causing climate change other than through their energy usages (or idiosyncratic emissions). Lastly, the final category are the Climate Heroes who get rated "C+" as they are actively working to solve humanity's need for clean energy and/or carbon services, which seek to restore the natural carbon balance in the atmosphere.

Once these very broad but clear buckets are determined, ESG ratings can be applied to provide more nuanced distinctions between the companies in each of the three buckets, based upon their treatment of employees, governance policies, whether or not they take care of their toxic emissions or waste products, whether they protect water sheds or try to use clean energy for their operations, etc. In this way, Tesla will be in the C+ bucket with other climate heroes and rated in comparison to other electric car companies but will never be in the same climate bucket as disgraced Climate Villain, ExxonMobil, which must try to out-maneuver other fossil fuels purveyors stuck in the C- bucket.

If this simple change were implemented, ESG funds could showcase their percentage of holdings that are C+ versus C, and ESG would finally become a highly effective tool for enabling investors to invest towards increasing the sustainability of our planet.

References

Columbia University, Climate Science & Solutions, Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What's Up?, by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, January 4, 2023, the title is taken from a tweet by Zeke Hausfather.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2023). DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.

Fortune, Musk claims S&P ‘lost their integrity’ after Tesla gets booted from sustainability index while Exxon is included, by Christiaan Hetzner, May 18, 2022.

New York TImes, Sustainability Index Drops Tesla, Prompting Insult from Musk, By Jack Ewing and Stephen Gandel, May 18, 2022.

4. The (Re)Balancing Act of the S&P 500 ESG Index, by Margaret Dorn, Senior Director, Head of ESG Indices, North America, S&P Dow Jones Indices, May 17, 2022.

5. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, ESG Ratings: A Compass without Direction, by Brian Tayan, a researcher with the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business, David Larcker, Professor of Accounting at Stanford Graduate School of Business; Edward Watts, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Yale School of Management; and Lukasz Pomorski, Lecturer at Yale School of Management, August 24, 2022.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Carbon negative, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Investor activity, Macro Energy Systems, NEWS, Reduced ecosystem impacts, Solving climate

January 4, 2024

Dr. Hansen warning humanity to get its act together, deploy renewables and nuclear

Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"

Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.

The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.

Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"

For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.

Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.

On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."

Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.

By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.

To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.

Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.

The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.

The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:

The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.

Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.

"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.

December 13, 2023

International Conference Agrees to “Transition Away” from Fossil Fuels

For the first time ever, and despite being hosted the United Arab Emirates, the COP agrees to "transition away" from fossil fuels. This is the first time in over 35 years of meeting internationally to address climate change, that the UNFCC has reached an agreement that even mentions reducing fossil fuels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGEaWZL5zL4

Though not the firm commitment to "phase out" fossil fuels that many attendees were hoping for, this agreement nevertheless goes further in specifically calling for nations to begin reducing their dependence upon fossil fuels than any other prior agreement did. Now, the question becomes "how can such a transition happen" without compromising the reliability of the grid? The answer was not provided in the text of the agreement. But the answer was provided in the pledges made during the conference: a tripling of nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency. Increasingly, nations will be looking to see how they can replace fossil fuels with another energy source that is equally as firm and reliable. They will eventually find their way to nuclear power if they don't already have hydro or geothermal resources.

Read more at Reuters "Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels," by Valerie Volcovici, Gloria Dickie and William James, December 13, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

October 22, 2023

Parnassus Versus Green Century: A Contrast in Styles

By Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner

June, July and August of 2023 were the three hottest months the Earth has ever seen by such a large margin, it left climate scientists agog. Climate disasters are abounding apace, with the U.S. hit by 23 large-scale disasters, a record-breaking year already. In Pakistan, extreme rainfall and flooding affected 33 million people, killing more than 1,700, displacing more than 8 million and causing damage estimated at over $30 billion, not counting the estimated 2.2% loss to the country's gross domestic product. North America and even Hawaii were ravaged by intense forest fires, with record acreage subsumed, scorching towns like Hahaina, killing hundreds, and forcing evacuations in areas of the northeast, northwest and Hawaiian islands once seen as refuges from the expected heat. Decades of increasingly severe drought, now complicated by shortages and war, have displaced millions in Iraq and other regions of the Middle East and the bad climate news is just getting worse, adding to the cacophony of alarm bells being rung by scientists in almost every field. In this context, when it is clear that we humans are not coming close to winning this fight, it's illuminating to contrast how two competing sustainable investment groups have chosen to address their obligation to invest "sustainably."

As we reported back in May, Parnassus Investments, a leading sustainable investment fund, issued a stunning press release in which they announced the removal of their negative investment screen on nuclear power along with a positive outlook for its role in reducing emissions.

In a succinct six paragraphs, Parnassus explained the basis for this momentous decision that reversed a policy in place for the entire 39 years of their existence. While it is not issuing an absolute commitment to invest in nuclear equity, the statement showed that Parnassus’s Sustainability team had thoroughly researched the issue of nuclear power and were sufficiently convinced that nuclear could be an important contributor to helping the world decarbonize to change their minds and finally include nuclear in the universe of investment prospects.

We regard this milestone decision as an impressive example of science and fact-based ESG leadership, reflecting actual changes in the nuclear industry over the last few decades as well as the utter catastrophe we are facing, if we don't find better ways to reduce emissions from our energy usage. Similarly, around that same time, Bank of America Securities analysts released their first "BUY" recommendation for nuclear power in nearly four decades. In BofAS's highly detailed report, titled "The Nuclear Necessity,” a team of five analysts explained why they were "bullish on nuclear power" and laid out both the case for and the methods by which investors should start increasing their exposure to nuclear equities and uranium. This event, we noted was yet another milestone.

Nevertheless, on August 30th, writing in a publication called ESG Clarity, Leslie Samuelrich, the CEO of Green Century Funds, another investment fund which considers itself a leader in sustainable investing, issued her pushback in the form of doubts. Ms Samuelrich wrote: "Even though I knew for months that an ESG firm was thinking about removing its exclusion on nuclear power producers, I was taken aback when I read their press release. Why would they revert their position and turn to nuclear when investing in renewable energy has grown so dramatically?"

Ms. Samuelrich then proceeds to trot out five dog-eared paragraphs containing the standard litany of antinuclear arguments (Safety, Cost, Timing, Emissions and Waste) which, like figures in a wax museum, reflected views so frozen in time, no amount of new data or climate rationale could have had any effect. She makes no reference to nuclear's improved safety performance, nor any mention of new designs nor the accelerating customer interest in them. The stark contrast between the perspectives laid out by these competing sustainability-focused investment firms offers an excellent opportunity to compare the styles and seriousness of their approaches to their ESG investment missions.

Parnassus Investments

Parnassus Investments was founded in 1984 to provide socially-responsible investments. Headquartered in San Francisco, they now have 70 employees and about $42 billion in assets under management (as of Sept. 30, 2023). This is a serious investment firm with an impressive $600 million in AUM per employee.

Reflecting Parnassus’s seriousness is the Climate Action Plan that the firm adopted in December 2022. This Plan established a goal of net-zero emissions in all their funds by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement. This document and commitment demonstrate that Parnassus understands this key point: it is not enough to avoid fossil fuels; society also has to figure out where all the future clean power that we need will come from. It's the long-term "rubber meets the road" reality check. Parnassus's statement that they will now include nuclear in their investment universe to support the transition to a low-carbon economy reflects their deep thinking about this urgent reality.

We imagine that it must have been a difficult decision for the Parnassus team. But they displayed the intellectual honesty to take a deep, critical look at the landscape for where we will produce our clean energy and, like many of us, found the calculations around deployment of renewables did not add up. It is never easy to have to change one's mind. Never easy to reverse course. With respect to nuclear—which evokes so much knee-jerk prejudice and emotion—even being open to an objective evaluation is difficult. Many members of the antinuclear community see it as such a betrayal, they'll question your motives. What ultimately forces objective people to look more closely at nuclear is the fact and increasing certainty that we cannot meet our climate and energy goals without it. Parnassus demonstrated both analytical clarity and courage in their decision to abandon their negative screen and allow nuclear back into the universe of possible equities—without a thought of abandoning their commitment to rigorously evaluate each prospective candidate for its adherence to high ESG performance metrics.

Although in 1984, Parnassus was also concerned about the safety and cost issues involved with nuclear power, they have since learned that nuclear is a critical source of low-carbon power whose benefits include both safety and a stability. They've also recognized that, over the years, tighter regulations have led to improved designs and operating performance. Additionally, they were pleased to find that the new generation of nuclear technology being developed now offers both higher safety and lower costs. The Parnassus investment team, led by Marian Macindoe, Head of ESG Stewardship, has clearly done a deep dive into today's more diverse nuclear industry, where a broader menu of options are being developed, and believes that "nuclear energy will be an essential source of fuel in the transition to the renewable sources required to support a low-carbon economy . . . and a reasonable choice." This reflects considerable research and learning. We applaud the extremely professional work this team has done.

Green Century Funds

Green Century Funds, founded in 1991 by a "group of environmental and public health nonprofits," has nearly $1 billion in assets under management as of June 30, 2023. Green Century’s Registered Investment Advisor, Green Century Capital Management (GCCM), has 13 employees, six of whom provide investment advisory or research work (as of GCCM's most recent ADV) about $86 million in AUM per employee. Any profits from their investment advisory operations go to Paradigm Partners, a holding company owned by the founding entities, predominantly NGOs affiliated with Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group — Mass PIRG, NJ PIRG Citizen Lobby, Conn PIRG, CA PIRG, Washington State PIRG, Missouri PIRG Citizen Org, Colorado PIRG, PIRGIM Public Interest Lobby, and Fund for the Public Interest. These are all advocacy groups. None are scientific or investment experts.

Green Century's stated mission conforms to an advocacy model: to help people save for their future without compromising their values and to help investors "keep their money out of the most irresponsible industries." In other words, Green Century Fund applies a simplified, reductive view that merely screens out investments that don't meet their "values" — i.e. no fossil fuel, tobacco, nuclear and conventional weapons, nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other industries "whose core business threatens the environment and public health." Green Century specifically does not aspire to invest into companies that will enable a sustainable future. They also have not published a "Climate Action Plan," from what we could see, so they have made no specific commitment to decarbonizing their fund. We were curious as to what they do invest in.

A cursory overview of Green Century's Equity Fund, the largest of its four mutual funds boasting $544 million in AUM, reveals the following Investment Categories and percentages of investments:

Software & Service 23% (52% of which is Microsoft)
Semiconductors 10% (52% of which was NVIDIA)
Media & Entertainment 8.2% (83% is Alphabet)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech 7.3%
Financial Services 6.4% (26% is Mastercard)
Capital Goods 6.2% (20% is Caterpillar or Deere & Co.)
Food & Beverage 4.5% (57% is Coke and Pepsi)
Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency 4.1% (90% is Tesla)
Healthcare 4.0%
Consumer Discretionary 3.7%
Equity REITs 3.0%
Insurance 2.9%
Household/Personal Products 2.7%
Consumer Services 2.5% (43% McDonald's)
Materials 2.5%
Tech Hardware & Equipment 2.5% (43% Cisco)
Transportation 2.0% (31% Union Pacific Corp)
Consumer Durables & Apparel 1.2% (58% Nike)
Banks 0.9%
Telecom .8% (98% Verizon)
Commercial & Prof. Services .5%
Consumer Staples .3% (54% Sysco Corp)
Automobiles .3% (Rivian is here at 17%)
Utilities .2%
Healthy Living 0.0%

There are several interesting things that pop out from our review. Of the top 9 listed investment categories, containing 70% of the total assets, five have a majority of capital concentrated in just one or two companies. Thus, by dollars, this fund is dominated by its investments in Microsoft, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Mastercard, and Tesla. While these are great companies, it is notable that all of them, without exception, require massive amounts of electricity for their success. Which means from a sustainability perspective, that they will need reliable, affordable and growing sources of clean electricity to remain profitable over time. Where will that come from?

In her written response to the Parnassus shift, Ms. Samuelrich pointedly asks "Why would [Parnassus] revert their position and turn to nuclear when investing in renewable energy has grown so dramatically?" Well, Ms. Samuelrich can easily find the answer to her question in her own firm's largest portfolio. It lacks meaningful investment in clean energy. Green Century claims to have put 4% of its assets into "Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency." If that were true, one could imagine justifying that level, as the traditional Energy sector represents 4.7% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 index [S&P 500 9/30/23 FactSheet]. A closer look, however, paints a different picture.

Of the 4% of assets designated as Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency, 90% was actually invested in Tesla. Tesla is an electric car company, as everyone knows. Cars, even when electric, are neither a source of "renewable energy" nor do they produce "energy efficiency." But Green Century knows this because it has properly categorized Rivian, another electric car manufacturer, in the "Automobile" category. Yet, Green Century chose to put Tesla into the "Renewable Energy" category. Perhaps this is because Tesla acquired Solar City, and so has a small division that sells solar panels and battery walls. But Tesla’s 6/30/23 10-Q reports that “Energy Generation and Storage” produced less than 7% of Tesla's total revenue ($3.038 billion of total revenue of $48.256 billion) for the first six months of 2023.

Aside from Tesla, the amount of capital that Green Century has invested in Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency is just 0.4%. These investments include five companies, of which Johnson Controls represents 60%. Johnson Controls provides HVAC systems, fire protection, and automated data information about energy use for many types of commercial buildings. They also service "90% of the world's top marine and oil and gas companies for all types of assets and facilities." In other words, a sizeable portion of their business derives from the oil and gas industry, conveniently ignored by Green Century. For argument's sake, we'll assume that Johnson is credibly working towards "energy efficiency" wherever they are but they are definitely not creating renewable energy.

The remaining .16% portion of Green Century's “Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency” holdings is comprised of four investments: Acuity Brands, Itron, Ormat Technologies and First Solar. Acuity Brands markets smart lighting and building management solutions. Itron provides smart networks, software, services, meters and sensors to help manage energy and water. Acuity and Itron may contribute to energy efficiency, but neither produces renewable energy. Ormat Technologies claims to be a leader in providing "Green Power Plants" spanning geothermal power, solar power and "recovered" energy (i.e. storage). First Solar, the only US-based solar manufacturing company, claims to offer next-generation solar technologies, a high-performance, low-carbon alternative to conventional photovoltaic panels. At last, two companies that actually contribute to the creation of renewable energy! Yet the Green Century fund invests less than 0.12% of its total assets into these two companies. In contrast, Green Century has invested over 2.5% in Coke and Pepsi — more than twenty times the amount invested in renewable energy companies that Ms. Samuelrich claims are growing so quickly.

We are a bit "taken aback" by the choices made by Green Century, not only their degree of concentration in a few large cap companies but the misleading industry categorizations and failure to invest meaningfully in the lauded renewable energy companies working to clean our energy system. Ms. Samuelson argues that sustainable investors should support the renewable energy sector, so why isn't she, if she truly believes that "the world is set to add as much renewable power in the next five years as it did in the past 20?"

Samuelrich asks, "Why gamble with the environmental and public health risks of [nuclear], especially when renewable energy is cleaner and cost competitive?" The answer is clear to those who actually do the research and care about facts: because neither solar nor wind actually provide the reliable or climate resilient power that societies demand and need. Geothermal remains highly limited by geography. So, as we've witnessed, without a truly reliable source of clean energy, humanity will continue to demand reliable but dirty fossil fuels and emissions will keep growing—as they have continued to do, despite big increases in renewables. The only clean and firm source of power that can scale up with the speed we need it to, is nuclear. It's gotten a whole lot better over the last 40 years—in part due to the public's concerns about it's safety and increased regulatory scrutiny—and now a new slate of advanced designs with different sizes and features is emerging and buyers like Dow Chemical and Microsoft are leaning in.

We would urge all sustainable-minded investment groups not to take shortcuts and pander to aged ideologic tropes like Green Century, but instead examine today's facts and data carefully and think critically, as Parnassus did, about the real challenges around how we will produce the enormous and growing amounts of clean grid-scale, distributed and industrial-process heat power on which we all depend. Simply saying “no” to technologies you don't like may have been a justified approach three decades ago but it has not helped solve our true climate dilemma—meeting humanity's growing energy needs without impacting the climate. Until we make this transition, nothing is "sustainable." Nor will it enable one's investors to participate in the growth of a sector—like next-gen nuclear—that is increasingly being recognized by climate and energy experts as critical to our survival.

We are extremely glad that serious, research-focused investors, like Parnassus Investments and Bank of America Securities, are figuring this out and are willing to do the hard work, risk the bruises that may result from following the facts to where they sometimes inconveniently reside, and build the necessary technical capacity to both analyze and potentially invest in the advanced technologies and companies working hard to actually deliver a more sustainable future.

References

New York TImes, Record Number of Billion-Dollar Disasters Shows the Limits of America's Defenses, by Christopher Flavelle, Sept. 12, 2023.
World Bank: Pakistan: Flood Damages and Economic Losses Over USD 30 Billion and Reconstruction Needs Over USD 16 Billion - New Assessment, October 28, 2022
Parnassus Investments: Parnassus Investments Removes Investment Screen for Nuclear Power in Support of Our Transition to Low-Carbon Economy, May 1, 2023
ESG Clarity: Should we embrace nuclear energy to solve the climate crisis? By Leslie Samuelrich, CEO of Green Century Funds, August 30, 2023
Bank of America Securities, RIC Report, "The Nuclear Necessity," by Jared Woodard, published May 11, 2023.
Parnassus' Annual Stewardship Report, Principals and Performance in Action 2023
Green Century's Equity Fund Holdings, as of June 30, 2023, with assets of $544,380,517.
Parnassus Funds, totalling over $42 billion as of 9/30/23.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Asset manager support, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Climate mayhem, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Investor activity, NEWS, Public companies, Reduced ecosystem impacts, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership

October 18, 2023

Protected: Middle East Peace Demands Regional Collaboration

Published by Jason in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Energy abundance, Extreme weather, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, International Collaboration, Solving climate

September 8, 2023

World is on track to miss climate targets

UN warns that the world will miss climate targets unless fossil fuels are phased out, according to an article in The Guardian by Environmental Editor, Fiona Harvey. This is a remarkable declaration by the UN, which has not previously called for the phase of fossil fuels so explicitly. Unfortunately, the UN's draft with this important language now appears to have been removed.

There is so much money being made by fossil fuel exporting countries, that in nearly all prior rounds of climate talks and negotiations, discussion of the need to phase out fossil fuels resulted in unresolved controversy. Yet, because we have failed to curtail carbon emissions, and In fact, they are still rising, the UN declared this "a critical moment" with a "rapidly narrowing window" for governments to reduce their emisisons. The language came out in the UN's report which was published in draft form on September 8th.

Governments are failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to stave off climate disaster. Meeting the goals will require "phasing out all unabated fossil fuels," according to the draft report entited "Sythesis Report of the Technical Dialogue of the First Global Stocktake." The UN published this draft, despite recognizing that that some oil-producing countries may find that statement hard to take. Meanwhile, the draft now appears to have been embargoed and removed from the UN's website, which is very much the way things have been going all along. We know what we need to do but those profiting from fossil fuels continue to have the power to block progress in phasing down use of those fossil fuels.

Read The Guardian's 'A critical moment’: UN warns world will miss climate targets unless fossil fuels phased out, by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Editor, published September 8, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Government support, LINKS, Private companies, Solving climate

August 14, 2023

Montana Judge rules in favor of having a livable future

Montana Judge Kathy Seely invalidated as unconstitutional the so-called “limitation” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which was amended by the legislature this year, in House Bill 971 as well as Senate Bill 557, which prohited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when deciding whether to approve permits for energy and mining projects.

In doing so, she upheld the claim of 16 youth plaintiffs who sued the state demanding that the state of Montana protect their rights to a clean and healthy environment and the state's natural resources from unreasonable depletion. In Held V. Montana, the plaintiffs demanded that the state Constitution be respected, in asserting that Montanans have a right to a clean and healthful environment and that each Montanan "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations."

“By prohibiting consideration of climate change, (green house gas) emissions, and how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution, the MEPA Limitation violates Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and is facially unconstitutional,” Seeley wrote in her order.

According to Blair Miller, who published Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial, finds two laws unconstitutional, in the Nevada Current on August 14, 2023, the Held vs. Montana case was the first case challenging state and national climate and energy policies to make it to trial in the U.S., and is now the first in which the plaintiffs, 16 Montana youth now ages 5 to 22, were victorious.

This ruling was welcomed by the climate community and is expected to be a harbinger of things to come. Of course, not every state constitution provides a right to a healthy environment but the eggregiously pro-fossil fuel legislation that was passed by the Republican supermajority-held legislature was brashly unconstitutional in Montana. So, at the moment, there is at least one state that believes that children deserve a healthful future that cannot be simply denied because an industry wants to make more money.

For a blast of good climate news, see the Nevada Current's: Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial, finds two laws unconstitutional, by Blair Miller published August 14, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, LINKS, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership

July 25, 2023

A New Oppenheimer Moment

We've had a resurgence of interest in and conversation about nuclear energy since the release at the end of April of Oliver Stone's exceptional documentary, Nuclear Now. But Stone's historic film, much like Robert Stone's Pandora's Promise and Dave Schumacher's The New Fire, before it, suffers from the endemic unpopularity of documentaries. People don't flock to theaters to see them. Which made (what was called) "Barbenheimer," the culturally clashing concurrence of opening nights for Greta Gerwig's very pink Barbie movie and Christopher Nolan's explosive Oppenheimer so different. Theaters were packed. People went to see them as double-features. The press had a field day for a week and both films exceeded box-office expectations, providing welcome relief for movie theaters everywhere.

The public is, as a result, reacquainted with J. Robert Oppenheimer (JRO to those who knew him) and his tortured if heroic role in leading the U.S.'s war time emergency program, dubbed "The Manhattan Project," to a successful conclusion: creation of the first atomic bomb. Whether or not this crowning achievement by the secretive project—that recruited the world's top physicists, engineers and scientific minds to Los Alamos, a remote area in New Mexico—and let the atomic genie out of bottle was a net positive or a net negative, may still be debated. But now that it has, we must rely on our ability to self-regulate the use of this technology for good, as JRO understood so well.

We are now in the throes of sorting out how best to limit nuclear bombs but expand the beneficial uses of atomic tech for energy, industry, agriculture and medicine. Which is why we were so pleased to have been connected with Charles Oppenheimer some weeks ago and to have been invited to participate in the Oppenheimer Exchanges, a day long event bringing together leadership from within the DOE's National Labs and a few business groups, orchestrated to coincide with opening night for the Oppenheimer film. Fortunately, this included tickets to the San Francisco premiere at the Metreon iMax Theatre and a brief pre-screening conversation between younger members of the Oppenheimer family, who provided some perspective on the family's legacy and ongoing initiatives.

For many of us, this was an eye-opening discussion. It was just in December of 2022, that the DOE finally restored Oppenheimer’s long lost—but still widely lauded reputation—with an order vacating the Atomic Energy Commission's 1954 decision to revoke JRO's security clearance. While largely symbollic, since JRO died in 1967, the DOE's order, and Secretary Granholm's Statement about it, addressed and began to reverse the damage that had been done to the Oppenheimer name, through what the DOE called a "flawed" process.

In 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission revoked Dr. Oppenheimer’s security clearance through a flawed process that violated the Commission’s own regulations. As time has passed, more evidence has come to light of the bias and unfairness of the process that Dr. Oppenheimer was subjected to while the evidence of his loyalty and love of country have only been further affirmed. The Atomic Energy Commission even selected Dr. Oppenheimer in 1963 for its prestigious Enrico Fermi Award citing his “scientific and administrative leadership not only in the development of the atomic bomb, but also in establishing the groundwork for the many peaceful applications of atomic energy.”

Among scientists and those who knew Oppenheimer's legacy, vindication had already begun as far back as 1963, when the Atomic Energy Commission selected Oppenheimer for the prestigious Enrico Fermi Award for his "scientific and administrative leadership not only in the development of the atomic bomb, but also in establishing the groundwork fo rthe many peaceful applications of atomic energy."

Then, in 2017, the DOE recognized JRO with the creation of the Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program, which was designed to support early and mid-career scientists and engineers to "carry on [RJO's] legacy of science serving society."

This DOE program has now graduated multiple cohorts. Many of these alumni gathered in San Francisco to discuss the Oppenheimer legacy and explore relevant topics, in particular the need for science and scientists to rise to the challenge of solving global crises with technology. Oppenheimer's leadership example is a model by which the scientific community can organize itself to tackle problems, such as climate change. Given how badly we are doing responding to the threat posed by climate change, this is a very welcome concept.

The Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program (OSELP) run by the DOE is “the premier leadership development program of the national Laboratory Directors’ Council, which comprises the leadership of all 17 National Labs. The program exposes emerging leaders to the singular breadth, diversity and complexity of the National Labs and their partners in government, industry, and academia. OSELP represents a collective commitment from all 17 DOE labs to cultivate the leaders needed to sustain long-term impacts throughout the complex. Out of the OSELP has grown an alumni group now called the Oppenheimer Leadership Network, who are those who have been through the OSELP program. The OLN is the formal network of ESELP alumni to collaboratively engage on strategic issues and produce deliverables that address major organizational, policy, scientific or other challenges within the National Labs’ mission space. We were pleased to meet many members of the OLN at the event. Now the Oppenheimer family has a new vision. They are aiming to develop several initiatives, under the banner of The Oppenheimer Project, whose mission is to promote and advocate for solutions to mitigate the risks posed by technological development. 1) Promote JRO’s legacy and encourage scientific leaders to discuss and address today’s existential threats.2) Advocate and educate about nuclear energy, for increased cooperation on energy and decreased threats of weapons.3) Invest in the energy transition to carbon-free energy sources including nuclear energy. Already, Charles Oppenheimer, JRO's grandson, has come out strongly for nuclear power in a Time Magazine Ideas article, entitled Nuclear Energy's Moment Has Come, published May 11, 2023. In it, Charles calls for a "Manhattan Project" for carbon-free energy production.

In addition to having the support of the younger members of the Oppenheimer family, The Oppenheimer Project has received the support of Lynn Orr, a former Under Secretary for Science and Energy at the DOE and now at Stanford University, and Dr. Larry Brilliant, a physician, epidemiologist and senior counselor at the Skoll Foundation, as advisers. There are now some dozens of graduates of the OSELP and OLN members who could also participate. Given how poorly we are doing mounting the appropriate response to the threat from continued emissions, extending Oppenheimer's inimitable complex project management legacy to tackling this new global challenge has the potential to be significant development in the fight against climate change.

Older Posts ›