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.

Watch the video on YouTube

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.

June 30, 2023

Screen “Nuclear Now”

Nucleation Capital sponsored free screenings of Oliver Stone's timely documentary, Nuclear Now, through June. Now you can stream this film through iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Vudu, Microsoft Store/X-box, and cable-on-demand platforms like Comcast, Spectrum and Cox. Stone finally clears away the myths and fictions about this powerful source of carbon-free energy with a surprisingly positive and even encouraging film. Learn why a growing number of energy and climate experts call for the use of nuclear power in humanity's fight against fossil fuel emissions.

Oliver Stone’s documentary “Nuclear Now” opened in New York, Los Angeles and other markets across the U.S. and Canada on April 27th with great critical acclaim. Many theaters held a panel discussion after the screening, so viewers could continue the conversation. We hosted a series of virtual panel discussions that were well attended. We have one final panel planned for later this summer. If you would like to learn about that and have not previously signed up to attend an event, use this registration link and we will send you an invitation to this event. If you have already signed up for an event, you don't need to do so again.

Schedule of Events

April 27, 2023
May 1, 2023

The film premiers in 350 theaters around the the country. Check for theaters and purchase tickets online through this link.

May 2, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 1st VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to attend a viewing during the film's premier in theaters. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 11, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 2nd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to access the GWU screening link. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 25, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 3rd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

June 6, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 4th VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

Stay tuned . . .

(Nuclear Movie Director Panel . . . being planned for later this summer.)

Streaming and other licenses

The Nuclear Now Film

(https://nuclearnowfilm.com)

There are many ways that NUCLEAR NOW can be licensed for viewing by groups or institutions through the filmmaker and media partners, including RoCo and Participant Media. Please visit the website to learn more.

Original publication date: April 29, 2023. Updated May 15 and June 30.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, NEWS, Pro-nuclear campaign, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

May 15, 2023

Parnassus Shows True ESG Leadership and Embraces Nuclear

Parnassus Investments reverses its 40-year ban on nuclear energy investments, and demonstrates rare but critical leadership within the sustainable investment community.

There is nothing more difficult and potentially risky than breaking ranks with one's ideologic tribe. In deciding to eliminate its own negative screen on nuclear power, Parnassus Investments, a leader in sustainable investing, has demonstrated not just that it has done its homework (unlike, say, Green Century Funds), but that it is an organization that adheres to science and facts, rather than ideology and takes its commitments seriously. This takes exceptional courage and confidence in world riven by fearful ideologues and the furious misinformed.

We have been through what we imagine is a similar awakening process to that which the senior leadership team at Parnassus, led by Marian Macindoe, head of ESG stewardship at Parnassus, and its board of trustees clearly partook. If you are courageous enough to look and listen, the facts and experts all point to the inevitable conclusion that nuclear power, despite all of the controversy around it, is much better than we've been led to believe and it provides a key tool in the clean energy toolbox that doesn't otherwise exist: firm clean power. Only that can compete with the firm dirty power to which we are addicted.

It is a thing of beauty, so we reproduce the entire statement issued by Parnassus itself below:

San Francisco, CA May 1, 2023

In support of the transition to a low-carbon economy, Parnassus Investments, a pioneer in responsible investing, is removing its long-held exclusion on companies that make more than 10% of their revenue from nuclear power generation and/or related activities. This change was approved by the Funds’ board of trustees and will be reflected in the Prospectus dated May 1, 2023.

Parnassus initially established the nuclear power screen in 1984 because of the safety and cost issues involved with building and running nuclear plants. Today, we believe nuclear energy offers a critical source of fuel, with benefits that include low to no emissions, safety and stability. Tighter regulations governing nuclear plants have also led to improved designs and equipment as well as training and emergency response requirements. We are also pleased with the potential that the new generation of nuclear technology offers for higher safety and lower costs.

“We believe this is the right thing to do at this time because nuclear energy will be an essential source of fuel in the transition to the renewable sources required to support a low-carbon economy, and because we view nuclear power generation, in a highly regulated environment, as a reasonable choice,” said Marian Macindoe, head of ESG stewardship at Parnassus.

The change will have no immediate impact on Parnassus Funds, but it will enable nuclear power companies to be part of the universe of securities considered for investment. Any potential investment in a company with revenue exposure to nuclear power generation would not only be subject to extensive risk review but would also require deep examination of its traditional investment characteristics.

Parnassus research analysts will evaluate companies involved in nuclear generation and engineering for robust governance, oversight and safety processes, including risk assessments and preparedness for climate, geologic and geopolitical events; a commitment to science-based emissions-reduction targets; and strong policies for nuclear-waste storage and disposal.

In addition to acting in support of a low-carbon economy, Parnassus is removing the nuclear screen in response to investor preferences shifting from exclusionary screens and toward investments in companies with positive social and environmental attributes. The changes also reflect the firm’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in December 2022, to establish a goal of net-zero emissions in all our funds by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Shareholders in Parnassus Funds can obtain more information by calling (800) 999-3505 or emailing shareholder@parnassus.com.

Click here to go to Parnassus Investments own press announcement: Parnassus Investments Removes Investment Screen for Nuclear Power in Support of Our Transition to Low-Carbon Economy, published May 1, 2023.