Connect with us


ET Index blog series: Carbon Risk



If ‘climate risk’ is the probability of climate catastrophe occurring then ‘carbon risk’ is the probability that investments in high carbon companies and assets will lose value as we transition away from fossil fuels and move towards an increasingly carbon constrained world. Sam Gill, CEO of ET Index writes.

The most famous argument is the ‘carbon bubble’ idea. This is comes down to three simple numbers. The first, is 2 degrees celcius. This is the internationally agreed ‘safe’ limit of global warming beyond which we should not go. This reason for this limit is that once surpassed, the chances of climatic feedback loops kicking in increases dramatically. For example, if the world’s oceans suddenly become net emitters of carbon instead of absorbing carbon, we are in serious trouble as things could move very quickly and we could easily be looking at temperature rises far beyond 4 or 6 degrees.

To avoid this limit we have a total ‘carbon budget’. Given we have already used up a third of the Carbon Tracker’s estimated 50 year budget within the first decade of this century, we now have  approximately 565 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) left. However, the amount of carbon embedded in the fossil fuel reserves of the largest 200 listed oil, gas and coal companies represents around 2,795 billion tCO2e, a number almost five times greater. Harking back to the previous post about ‘climate change risk’ this would still give us a 20% chance of not exceeding 2 degrees and potentially triggering runaway climate change. Would you get in a car that had a 1 in 5 chance of crashing? Not great odds.

As governments move to limit global warming there is a strong possibility that these assets will become stranded, leading to significant write-downs in the value of the underlying stocks holding them. Equally if investors fear that a significant write-down could occur, this could be enough to bring about a sharp drop in demand for fossil fuel company shares, and indeed carbon intensive stocks more generally, necessitating a sharp decline in price. Stampedes don’t tend to be orderly affairs. One only has to look at the decimation of coal stock prices in recent years to see how this may unfold.

But it is not just about physical carbon assets becoming stranded. There are now over 60 national and sub-national jurisdictions around the world that are putting a price on carbon. And with the world’s three most powerful economic blocs, China, the US and the EU, all committed to curbing emissions, it’s clear which way the trend is going. As regulation of carbon emissions increases, the profitability of high-carbon companies will suffer.

There are two final points to consider from the financial ‘carbon risk’ point of view.

The first is that if the next bubble brewing within the economy is a carbon one, given how widespread carbon is, what kind of global economic shock could ensure? Analysis from HSCB suggests that equity valuations of fossil fuel companies could be reduced by 40-60% in a low emissions scenario. But as we know, sectors tend not to exist in isolation from their supply chains, or indeed the wider economy, and therefore it is unlikely that such write-downs would be limited to only fossil fuel stocks.

The second point is to consider the financial implications of a 4-6+ degree world (our current trajectory). Will our global geopolitical-economic system carry on as normal without suffering any serious loses? That is extremely unlikely and it likely to negatively affect investment returns.

For the prudent investor reducing exposure to ‘carbon risk’ individually while helping reduce exposure to ‘climate change risk’ collectively is the only sensible option. The difference between these two approaches will be explored further in the next blog post.


Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?



self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo |

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.


Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading


New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035



renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart /

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.


Continue Reading