What To Make Of This? "Credit Suisse Projects ~85% Of US Energy Demand Growth Coming From Renewables Through 2025"
Frequent commenter MarcoPolo placed a three-part note on my pieces on the Low Carbon Investment conference and this one on Amory Lovins, which I summarize as follows:
1) Amory Lovins isn’t really credible.
2) The study from Yale University suggesting that the common person is becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about climate change isn’t credible either.
3) There is no evidence that the big banks are investing heavily in renewable energy.
I respond:
1) I don’t know how to support/defend Amory Lovins. Yes, as you point out, he has developed a huge following over the last 40 years, and yes, I’m sure he’s gotten some things wrong. I find his presentation on his book “Re-inventing Fire” to be compelling, but that’s just me. I would also point out that his viewpoints are corroborated by numerous other author/scholars, like Jeremy Rifkin.
2) I happened to have chosen the Yale study almost at random. (I say “almost” because I have to admit that I’m impressed with names.) If you Google (like I did) “public opinion claim change,” you have 64+ million results. If you read a few of them (like I did) you’ll see that Joe Public’s concern on climate change is actually rising—even here in the U.S. where our congress is essentially owned by the oil companies and thus our legislation and the conversation surrounding it greatly favors The Extractors.
3) Again I refer you to Google. Look up “renewable energy (name of bank).” Try the huge investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank, then a few retail banks like Wells Fargo. You’ll see that most of them have entire business practices in this space.
These are the people I meet at the conferences I attend, btw; they’re not imaginary, they’re not investing fake money, and they have no reason to lie. As one fellow from a huge IB told me over lunch at the Low Carbon Investors conference, “we’re there because that’s where the money is.”
Note the title of the article linked above: “Credit Suisse Projects ~85% Of US Energy Demand Growth Coming From Renewables Through 2025.”
Graig, I think you have confused my observation as criticism, which was not intended.
1) It’s my observation, that Amory Lovins is an interesting and popular pundit. As a futurist advocate for climate change activism, he’s relatively moderate, and fairly harmless. My criticism is he mostly preaches obvious, “feel good” platitudes. The platitudes are about inconsequential items, and designed to support his predictions.
The only real initiatives attempted by Amory Lovins, and the Rocky Mountains Institute, have ended in failure, liquidation and a loss of public (and private) investment.
I criticize pundits like Avory Lovins, because they divert attention from issues of greater priority. Sort of like those earnest folk, who when confronted with the social problems of youth drug use, teen pregnancy, and suicide, content themselves by promoting useless moralistic programs, to non-risk youth organizations. ( what I call, the Readers Digest approach).
2) I fear you are confusing climate Change, awareness with “concern”. The US is not the entire world. I don’t agree that Joe Public is growing more supportive of publicly funded political climate change initiatives.
There’s a huge difference between getting people to agree on a ‘moral’ level about a vague concept where agreement is pretty harmless, and cost nothing to agree, and being willing to sacrifice for “green’ initiatives ! I don’t accept that vague internet rantings (however numerous) are a substitute for election results, as a measure of public opinion.
The point I’m trying to make, is the heavily politicized, leftist rhetoric adopted by the environmentalist movement over the last decade, is counter-productive. It’s forced Joe Public to increasingly reject even moderate environmentalist policies, (which are widely accepted) because they have become inextricably bound with ideological dogma, which Joe Public does not accept. (or want’s to pay for).
Graig, I have no wish to create offense, but your claim:
” the U.S. congress is essentially owned by the oil companies and thus our legislation and the conversation surrounding it greatly favors The Extractors “. …..
…provides a convenient example of what I mean. The Oil Industry does not “own’ the US Congress !
However, Oil Companies are the largest taxpayers in the US, (and at the highest corporate rate) . The Oil Industry remains the largest single factor in the US economy, and the number one wealth creator. What responsible legislator could ignore the opinions of such an important economic contributor ?
But, that’s different from “owning the congress”. There are many US politicians, who have made a career appealing to anti-oil constituents.
Have you ever considered, what immense ramifications to the US economy would occur, if the Oil Industry ceased to play such an important role ? Have you considered how much the development of new technologies would suffer, in a massive economic slump ?
If you were elected to office, what action could you undertake on behalf of the US people, against the US oil Industry, without irreparable damage an already debt-laden economy ? The US, is facing increasingly falling public revenue, and demands for increasingly expensive and expanding public services ? How would hampering your biggest source of tax revenue and wealth creation, help resolve national economic problems ?
(that’s not to say that a modest increase in tax at the pump, would be unreasonable).
3) My enquiry was genuine ! I wasn’t saying, “There is no evidence that the big banks are investing heavily in renewable energy “.
In fact, I was quite excited at the prospect of my industry investing $ 7 trillion over 5 years !
Unfortunately, the link you provided, was an article about a report. (not from the horses mouth). For the last 30 years Credit Suisse has been plagued by scandals, and the fallout from ill-judged acquisitions. The Bank is hurting from being the action of Swiss National Bank regulators to force Credit Swisse to toe the line, while investigations into scandals by US regulators is taking it’s toll.
In 2014 Credit Swisse pleaded guilty to a US federal criminal charge relating to tax issues and was forced to pay a penalty of $2.6 billion.
Credit Suisse is currently under investigation by the German authorities, for backing a sophisticated and complex system to inflate equity values. (especially in new technologies). The bank’s role in everything from distorted and inflated reports about the success and viability of German wind power, to convoluted transactions, favoring it’s own managed funds against the interests of other clients, is under investigation.
Craig, I earn my income, primarily, as a financial analyst. My investment projects are a by-product of my success as an analyst. Because of my training, I try to remain unemotional, realistic while substantiating and quantifying, not only the veracity of claims, reports , and predictions, but even the sources that led to the author(s) conclusions.
IMO there are three kinds of sources. Anecdotal, factual, or based on expert analysis. All provide valuable sources to construct an analysis of any interpretation.
So while you, as an advocate, welcome any positive source of confirmation, (even if only anecdotal) as verification of your position, I, as an analyst, must subject the same information, to more rigorous examination.
If you read the fine print, the Credit Swisse report, is full of qualifications. The report is designed to boost the reputation of Credit Swisse investments, and detract from negative publicity, by introducing some positive “green-washing”, to help the bank’s public image.
This doesn’t mean the employees, you meet at conferences etc, are dishonest ! These executives are undoubtedly sincere, and believe what they have been told. Nor does it mean the bank won’t do anything, to support investment in new technology.
But, it does mean you can’t just accept information at face value ! A little cynicism is healthy. ( too much, is paranoia) . Despite it’s shortcomings, Credit Swisse is a great financial institution, employing many sincere and honest people.
I also attend the same sort of conferences, (sometimes as a speaker ). If I were at a Low Carbon Investors conference, I would would answer the same as your luncheon companion. However, if you asked me to invest in any ” low carbon ” project, my answer would be less agreeable, and far more analytical !
I think you would agree, your evidence of ” $ 7 trillion in 5 years” seems mostly anecdotal, with a little sketchy guesswork concerning the Banks having “green investment” departments.
I hope you’ll forgive me, (as I said, I have no wish to offend) but you haven’t answered how the specific figure of $7 trillion is derived ?
The $7 trillion figure came from a conference I attended; I can’t recall who said it. Even if I could, I certainly have no way to corroborate it.
As far as what I would do if I had the power, let me think about that and write a post on it shortly.
Ah, thank you .
Yeah, I know, I do exactly the same ! I read, or hear something and it sticks in my mind. After I’ve repeated it a few times, it’s become an accepted fact, and I’ve forgotten where I first came by the information.
Lately, I’ve been citing the “hundreds of thousands of megawatts” generated by residential Solar installations in the US, as opposed to the miserable four thousand in Australia. I this fact resonates favourably, especially with the young, passionate and environmentally conscious members of the audience.
Imagine my embarrassment when an elderly, (and not too sober) member of the ‘forth estate’ contradicted me, with the following information:
1 Germany 38200
2. China 28199
3. Japan 23300
4. Italy 18460
5. USA 18280
6. France 5660
7. Spain 5358
8. UK 5104
9. Australia 4136
10. Belgium 3074
11. India 2936
12. Greece 2595
13. Korea 2384
14. Czech Rep 2134
15. Canada 1710
16. Thailand 1299
17. Romania 1219
18. Netherlands 1123
19. Switzerland 1076
20. Bulgaria 1022
! mean, how embarrassing! I remember I got the original figure from Al Gore, but I must have misheard. ( In fact, in per capita terms, Australia is doing much better than the US).
Interestingly, while in Germany, less than 11% of solar generation is considered “usable”, in Switzerland the usable percent is over 23%.
Here you go: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/26/progressive-national-energy-policy/.
And btw, I don’t resent criticism. “When everyone agrees, no one’s thinking very much.” http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/walterlipp145974.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect