Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund 177
antifoidulus writes "ABC news is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has announced the creation of a $1 Billion investment fund devoted to renewable energy. This will be an investment fund as opposed to charity, and Clinton has said that 'The Green Fund would focus on reducing dependence on fossil fuels, creating jobs, lessening pollution and helping to reduce global warming, all while making a profit.' Former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn will be managing the fund."
Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Moving away from fossil fuels may be for the greater good but we can't forget about the side effects that will have.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
There has been a lot of talk here in .au about our prime minister sucking to to GWB, particularly on environmental issues. Now there is talk of even GWB doing a U turn on energy policy. John Howard is going to look soooo stupid. I hope.
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's funny how "cheap" gets redefined as the price of crude rises. $40 a barrel was considered expensive a couple of years ago, and it hit nearly $80 a barrel earlier this year, but because it is now "only" $65 a barrel, it's still "cheap"!
Ask Richard Branson why he's putting up $10billion into this fund and he'll tell you it's because of the rise in fuel prices. Transport companies (ALL transport companies; road hualage, rail, shipping and airlines) are having major issues paying for fuel. These guys buy fuel by the hundreds of thousands and millions of barrels; a single dollar rise in fuel can cost them millions and reduce their already razor-thin margins. Paying an extra couple of cents at the pump might be an inconvenience for you, but it's a huge problem for these companies.
P.S: I didn't even mention petrochemical companies. The economics are the same for them, too. Let's also not forget the bilions of dollars spent on "protecting" oil supplies from the Middle East and South America, and the oil money that flows into unstable countries that is used, directly or indirectly, to fund terrorism and keep unsuitable governments in power.
Re:Wasn't this $ from Virgin Air's n-Years' profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally... (Score:2, Interesting)
So would I. Just because I don't own 'em doesn't imply that I don't use 'em. That's why there are jobs to be found in the enterprise.
Will you help me too?
Yes, I will. Although. .
The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C.
About the same as the local conditions I have operated under. I can show you solutions, some of which would . .
Remember that jobs are the context? Bicycles are not "free." They require support systems just like cars, and thus people to operate those support systems.
Jobs.
KFG
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Interesting)
One point I'd also add to your comment about returns is that this data does not include expense ratios, which are usually significantly higher than average in managed green funds. Part of this is due to the funds not getting near as much capital (due to the market's awareness that they deliver poor returns historically) as other funds, so the fund's costs are spread across less invested dollars. There may be other factors that increase the costs as well.
I work with emerging markets analysis and am careful about fund expenses as I would hope all investors would be. While the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) delivers a 7% return, it has a 1.5% expense ratio PLUS taxes that are distributed to the investor (which need to be accounted for as well). Your best return is actually 5.5% pre-tax consideration, and as mutual funds pass on their tax costs from trading, you really should consider that [ricedelman.com] as well.
An alternative (that has its own pros and cons) for someone who is determined to invest in clean energy is something like PowerShares Clean Energy WilderHill ETF [yahoo.com] PBW [powershares.com]. Read up on exchange traded fundss on someplace like Morningstar [morningstar.com] if you're not familiar with index investing. While I'm not recommending the clean energy sector, I'd suggest that if you're totally determined to invest in it for your own reasons, you at least look at lower expense opportunities like an ETF (in this case, the expense ratio is 0.6%). Otherwise, you'll be paying some firm to have well paid managers delivering lousy returns which is a real shame. And if you're prudent, you won't expect a positive return on your green investments - the sector has too much new venture risk, is very exposed to crude market risk (e.g. if other energy forms become significantly cheaper again, nobody buys their products), and in most cases this leads to liquidity and ultimately solvency risk. In a nutshell, the normal volatility storms of the energy market is too much for these little boats to weather.
Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuel economy is one thing, but so are emmissions.
A decision was made many years ago to forgoe many significant advances in fuel economy in favor of reducing emmissions. The last I heard, California's had a dramatic decrease in smog and increase in air quality. The Prius, though known and marketed for its fuel economy, is also marketed for its "Near Zero Emmissions" rating.
Priorities and all that . . . .