6 Different Ways to Play the Energy Sector in 2013

In the spirit of Christmas and giving, I plan to use the next two weeks leading up to Christmas to count down the 12 Days of Christmas in all their Foolish glory. In my rendition of this Christmas tale, you won't be hearing about turtle doves or French hens, but you'll hear about great ways to save money in 2013 and CEOs who laid rotten eggs in 2012.

In the previous "Foolish Days of Christmas," we've looked at:

As always, I ask you to sing along with me: "On the sixth day of Christmas my true love gave to me..."

Six different ways you can play the energy sector in 2013!

U.S. energy independence is a hot topic in Washington, and discovering how to produce energy from as many sources as possible is one way the U.S. can reach its goal of greater or complete independence. Here are six considerations for you to ponder as we head into 2013.

Oil
No matter how "evil" oil might seem, it will still remain the primary source of fuel for our cars for at least a few more decades. According to ExxonMobil, the U.S. will become a net exporter of oil and natural gas by 2025 due to major finds in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, and throughout much of the central United States.

Without question, there are an immeasurable number of ways to play the oil sector, but I can think of no company I'd rather own than Chevron (NYSE: CVX  ) , which gives investors exposure not only to the upstream oil and gas exploration and production side of the business, but also the upstream refined product. Just this year, Chevron moved into dividend aristocrat territory with its 25th straight year of annual dividend increases, and it continues to expand its influence globally. I honestly can't think of a viable reason not to own Chevron.

Coal
Coal accounted for 42% of all U.S. energy generation in 2011, and even with a greater emphasis on alternative energies like solar, wind, and hydroelectric, it's almost certain to play an important role in the U.S. energy picture. During the presidential debates, even President Obama pledged to continue to emphasize the use of clean coal.

Within the U.S., the coal picture is abysmal, with Patriot Coal going bankrupt and many others seemingly down for the count. While I've emphasized a strong probability of a rebound in coal producers like Arch Coal (NYSE: ACI  ) , which has de-emphasized domestic sales in favor of international expansion, I feel that master-limited partnership Alliance Resource Partners (NASDAQ: ARLP  ) is the smartest way to play coal in 2013. Alliance Resource has reported 11 straight years of record profits, boosted its dividend in 17 consecutive quarters, and contracted roughly 27 million tons of coal through 2018 (plus or minus 10%), with virtually none of it exposed to highly volatile market prices.

Natural gas
Natural gas is clean, readily available thanks to huge shale field finds throughout the U.S., and beginning to rebound in price. In 2010, natural gas accounted for about a quarter of all electricity generation, and given its still-inexpensive price and clean-burning qualities, you can expect its value to climb higher.

My original thought was to suggest that investors focus on individual drillers here, but the real investment opportunity in natural gas lies in the storage and transportation of this bountiful energy resource. Therefore, midstream master-limited partnerships like TC Pipelines (NYSE: TCP  ) and ONEOK Partners (NYSE: OKS  ) , which specialize in these activities and pay out handsome dividends, look like they could reap shareholders some big rewards in 2013.

Nuclear
Nuclear energy still accounts for approximately 20% of all electrical generation in the U.S., so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon. Although a few serious accidents -- including Three Mile Island in the U.S., Chernobyl in Russia, and the Fukushima-Daichi earthquake-related incident in Japan -- have tarnished nuclear's reputation, it's still a safe and clean form of energy generation.

However, the high costs of producing nuclear power are currently working against the industry. Exelon (NYSE: EXC  ) , the U.S. leader in nuclear production, has suffered through a miserable year as rising nuclear costs have made it difficult to compete with cheaper coal and natural gas. There is, however, a reasonable probability that the U.S. government may consider some kind of subsidy in the future to help out nuclear-energy producers. If a subsidy were to be pushed through Congress, then the nuclear sector and Exelon could be dirt-cheap investments at their current levels.

Solar
The solar sector is far from completing the washout of an inventory glut for both American and Chinese manufacturers. What we've witnessed in this washout is that many of the Chinese-based solar firms took on far too much debt and managed their inventory poorly, while well-funded companies like SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR  ) look poised to prosper.

Austerity measures in Europe may constrain orders over the first half of 2013, but SunPower's backing by energy giant Total means it has little to worry about from a financial perspective. It's also worth noting that SunPower is one of few solar companies that are 100% vertically integrated. This means SunPower can internalize all of its costs, lower its cost per watt to more attractive levels, and build on its U.S.-leading operating efficiency. Solar is clearly a big part of America's energy independence plan, and SunPower looks poised to play a big role.

Wind
I admit that I'm not a huge fan of alternative-energy investments, but I favor wind more than any of the available choices, as you can erect a productive wind farm just about anywhere, and it's a zero-emission energy source.

Two companies that are making big strides in wind production are Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK  ) , which has invested $2.5 billion over the past five years to produce 1,000 MW of wind-generated power, and NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE  ) , which has the largest wind-power-generating capacity in the U.S. at 8,569 MW as of 2011. Ultimately, wind power will help drive down customer costs and should be a big boost to these utilities' bottom lines -- as well as a big plus for the environment.

As the nation moves increasingly toward clean energy, Exelon is perfectly positioned to capitalize on having the largest nuclear fleet in North America. Combine this strength with an increased focus on renewable energy, and EXC's recent merger with Constellation puts Exelon and its best-in-class dividend on a short list of top utilities. To determine whether Exelon is a good long-term fit for your portfolio, you're invited to check out The Motley Fool's premium research report on the company. Simply click here now for instant access.


Read/Post Comments (25) | Recommend This Article (41)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 5:37 PM, artmuseum wrote:

    THumbs down for omitting SDRL!

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 7:22 PM, racchole wrote:

    I call on Motley Fool commenters to resist the urge to post rhetoric that means nothing to my investment decisions. My future depends on it.

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 7:29 PM, maiday2000 wrote:

    interdependent,

    I am not even sure why I am compelled to reply to your post but let me just say that aside from mass genocide and living in the stone age, we are unlikely to achieve 6% reduction of CO2 in even one year, much less year after year. I guess we'll all just have to die in a gigantic fireball. Bummer.

    Perhaps if you posted your screed to an Alyce Lomax article you could find a more receptive audience for your "climate change reporting in all MF articles."

    By the way, your long-winded post probably had a larger carbon footprint that any one else on the MF today. You could always try saving yourself from your own CO2 emissions by stopping breathing.

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 7:32 PM, TMFUltraLong wrote:

    artmuseum,

    You may not recall, but in our weekly Analyst Debate, both Travis Hoium and Alex Planes supported our thumbs-up of SeaDrill... I was for placing an underperform rating on the company. I still can't get over its years upon years of negative cash flow...

    TMFUltraLong

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 8:29 PM, interdependent wrote:

    I post my comments here on climate change because my kids depend on you and all investors to start thinking about your investments in terms of our survival. Reducing CO2 becomes more expensive every day, about a trillion dollars more each year we wait,

    So it only makes sense to start now.

    If you want to dismiss the possibility of restoring the energy balance in the atmosphere, and give up, would you please not continue to make it harder for future generations solve, generations who have not benefited or profited from our burning fossil fuels.

    You are not bothered that your position resembles the classic evil madman pointing a gun at all future generations and saying, "Do you feel lucky?"

    Knowing what is at risk, and that we are making this happen, and we are the only ones who can stop it, we must do the best we can.To do any less is not just immoral, it is psycho-pathological.

    I'm not giving up. I am reducing my footprint and asking us all to do the same. Find out more. Research a little, start somewhere friendly like The World Bank report, "Turning Down the Heat". My "ravings" are based on the global scientific consensus that says now is the time to act decisively, not to give up. Not while we can still make a difference. This might be the most interesting time to be alive in human history, and in earth's history.

    If we act now, quickly in unison, we can transform this economy like we did to fight WW2. And if we do and we succeed, we will reap the benefits now. And how will future generations judge us?

    And if we don't act now?

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 8:33 PM, hank321 wrote:

    The long polemical screed by Interdependent is overwhelmingly misleading. I call on Motley Fool to edit the propaganda that has no bearing on investments in any time period less than 10 years.

    Climate fanatics are enrapured by their own blessed brilliant insights, not to mention their self-avoved moral and ethical superiority. please do not bother them with childish requests for empirical evidence that is testable.

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 8:42 PM, QuandoInQuando wrote:

    FYI: The "Twelve Days of Christmas" refers to the 12 days AFTER Christmas ending on Jnauary 6th, the Epiphany, (sometimes called Little Christmas).

  • Report this Comment On December 18, 2012, at 9:38 PM, oldpratt wrote:

    Alterantive fuels may or may not be a good alternative investment right now but Divesting and not investing in fossil fuels is a simple way to make a vote for something new. If a movement grows, and there is a movement afoot, I hope that it brings the fossil fuel industry poor returns. One voice asking others to consider that each of us can together make change happen.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 12:16 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    Hey interdependent -- based on the amount of hot air belched out in your rants and Al Gore's private jet, massive house and yacht -- we'll all need to up the BTU's on our AC units; PRONTO!

    Cool down.

    Remember, energy -- mostly fossil fuel energy, feeds the masses and grows economies. No nation is going to choose a course that threatens the mass starvation of their people. So you may have to hurt your head a bit to come up with more realistic solutions to your nightmare -- real or imagined. Good luck!

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 1:31 AM, interdependent wrote:

    moneytrail makes a good point, "No nation is going to choose a course that threatens the mass starvation of their people."

    And I agree. That is why I believe we will abandon fossil fuels. The course we are on now threatens mass starvation: "the world consumed more food than it produced in 6 of the last 7 years" according to The National Security Council report published this week, "Global Trends 2030", which verifies that climate change is creating increasingly unstable weather, forcing food prices higher and threatening water supplies. If we do not change course, the report predicts by 2030 "half the world's population will live in areas of severe water stress."

    That is the course that we have chosen. Fossil fuel burning has created drought-prone areas in North America and Asia as predicted,

    http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=DISASTER_...

    What happens when the fossil fuel economy that feeds us all creates a fossil-fueled climate that wipes out our fossil-fueled crops?

    This is not a nightmare, this is business as usual if we continue to pretend it is not happening now.

    We have alternatives now, if we only have imagination to invest in them. That's what the market is for right? I don't need to hurt my head to come up with the solutions. They are right in front of us. New ones will emerge once we get going too. And once the momentum takes off...

    That's why I write to Fools. When we start investing as if our future matters, the change arrives.

    Yes, moneytrail, I drastically reduced my carbon footprint in order to offset my hot air and because the solutions are here now. I'm no saint, but fortunately also never blessed with the massive footprint of a yacht or jet. Then again I was also never one judge shy of becoming leader of the free world in a disputed election.

    I guess I'm lucky, or as they say in the developing world where I grew up, that is, the refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast: "Mo' money, mo' carbon."

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 8:30 AM, OHGtop10 wrote:

    CHKR for 17.50 = 15 + percent yield.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 8:46 AM, 48ozhalfgallons wrote:

    There's something primordial about CO2 and methane. Incorruptible. Peaceful.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 9:00 AM, OHGtop10 wrote:

    CHKR is a long term bet on NG, NGL and oil. The trust pays a DIV until 2031. CHKR appears to be undervalued at these levels. Collect the DIV. and consider selling above $30.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 10:50 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    Interdependent -- let's see now: in the 60's and 70's we had to stop global cooling; in the 80's, 90's and early oughts we had to stop global warming, now, we have the all encompassing "climate change" where regardless of what happens, it was predicted by the hapless group who wants to control the global economy with your new religion.

    One would think that all these hysterical "big brained" scientists who can't figure if we're cooling or warming and have surrendered to the "climate change" catch-all, would develop an affordable, alternate energy source to replace the dreaded fossil fuel demon. I guess it's more fun showing up at climate conferences in private jets and stretch limos than do the serious work of scientifc innovation.

    Now, back to real world investments.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 12:53 PM, interdependent wrote:

    moneytrail,

    In the real world, I don't worry about rich power-mad scientists, getting wealthy off their professor pay creating an evil empire to rule the world. But if you fear that sort of thing, if you want to track limos and private jets as a starting place start with the top 20 richest companies in the history of the world, dominated by fossil fuel burners. And look at the banks that fund them. To create doubt in the face of 99.83% scientific consensus, to keep you buying their carbon, they hire lobbyists, PR firms, and yes scientists, some of the same scientists hired by the tobacco companies way back when the 'big-headed' surgeon general announced in 1964 that cigarettes are harmful.

    And no, sadly the scientists in the 60's and 70's weren't wrong about the climate, the earth was on course to enter a cooling phase by now, based on solar forcing which is dependent on orbit and solar activity and temperature feedbacks on the surface, none of which was mistaken. But humans have since changed our planet's course.

    Back in 1981 Hansen's NASA research on CO2 predicted that in this cooling period, human activity releasing CO2 was actually going to be so strong as to overwhelm the natural planetary cooling cycle, which in fact it has done for 35 years, heating up each decade, but faster than any scientists predicted. Over the last 35 years earth would have been gradually cooling, and yet human actvity heated it up another 1 degree fahrenheit. This era can now be referred to as the Anthropocene because human activity is re-shaping the planet and the atmosphere.

    In one important way the scientists have been wrong, because their recent observations show that studies have proved too conservative, not drastic or rapid enough, models predicting change do not accurately factor in natural feedbacks, like how much carbon was released as more forests burn in wildfires each year (3 record-setting wildfire seasons in the last 6 years) which contributes to temperature rise in multiple ways, or the rate of arctic ice melt which releases more methane trapped in permafrost. This century "Permamelt" is now set to contribute as much warming to the planet as humans caused in the 20th century, but specifically when and how quickly large amounts of methane get released can't be known, so scientists have erred on the conservative side in predictions, which have failed to keep pace as we enter literally uncharted territory, but the processes began and accelerate each year.

    The window of opportunity to prevent runaway global warming is closing, and we won't know exactly when it has closed precisely because of these feedbacks and the continued warming already in the pipeline. So we must do as much as we can as soon as we can. That is the only safe nonpathological response. I am doing what I can, including not giving up, continuing to breathe, and writing to hopefully convince some of you to look into this and make changes right away.

    That is the only reason I write this. I am a dad who hopes to invest and retire to enjoy my grandkids believing that, in a time when science confirmed we have risked their future, I did everything I could to allow them a chance to enjoy their grandkids someday. And only one thing promises scientifically to eliminate that future for my kids and for yours, burning fossil fuels.

    Stop. How? To paraphrase our president, we need to put all options on the table for a secure energy future without fossil fuels. Yes, innovate, conserve, invest, divest now.

    Remember the families in Sandy Hook burying loved ones today. As the country grieves and looks closely at itself to prevent another tragedy like this one, consider how we can protect future generations who deserve our best efforts on their behalf.

    To a peaceful and compassionate new year.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 2:03 PM, moneytrail wrote:

    Interdependent -- since this is an investmnet site, I do support and encourage divestiture of hydro-carbon stocks. Those of us who understand the process will gladly buy, as you folks divest, and we will happily feast on the returns. No different from the climate chage industry sucking up tens of billions in taxpayer grants to write rigged reports -- e.g.- wrong conclusion, no publication, no more grants. At least the hydrocarbon industry creates value -- food, products, hope for those in abject poverty.

    With Gore as your spokesperson, your movement has no credibility, despite the fact that there may be some truth to your hypotheses of doom. People who move the world know your game is rigged and either profit from the game; Gore, Obama and thousands of other snake oil purveyors.

    There will be economic, non-polluting forms of energy, maybe within 50 years; but, not one day before it is shown that whatever form it is, it can attract private capital becasue it is economically viable.

    So, please continue to proselytize and above all -- please divest, divest, divest!

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 2:14 PM, moneytrail wrote:

    PS: Interdependent -- this site- http://www.futuretimeline.net/ -- will rock your world. It is my Christmas gift to you.

    Moneytrail.

  • Report this Comment On December 19, 2012, at 7:02 PM, interdependent wrote:

    If there were 998 doctors who said you had cancer and definitely needed an operation right away, while 2 doctors said it might not be cancer because they couldn't rule out that it might be "something else" even though you exhibit all the symptoms of the cancer diagnosis...

    Would you get the operation?

    Or would you listen to the 2 doctors who said it might be something else? And call the 998 others "snake oil purveyors"?

    This is the scientific consensus today on human-caused global warming, the impacts, and the solution: burn less carbon and plant more forests now.

    Other than the 2 doctors who can't say with certainty what is wrong, all the other voices you hear are bought and paid for by the carbon polluter industry in a very successful 20 year campaign of doubt, which aims to strip regulations like the Clean Air Act and drill and mine more cheaply.

    They have won the PR war, based on your reaction alone, and how they discredited the scientists is truly amazing considering that they have never disproved any of the science, or even one study.

    Even the carbon polluters have started to admit the truth in Australia where "The potential for rising sea levels and more cyclones due to climate change was a factor in BHP Billiton’s decision to replace a jetty at its Hay Point coal export terminal." (Financial Review Dec 3rd 2012)

    And at ExxonMobil where Rex Tillerson famously admitted the world is warming up, but confidently believes "we'll adapt" to global warming with "engineering solutions". Yes, ExxonMobil, the innovator we rely on to solve the climate crisis.

    In the new World Bank report "Turn Down The Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided", fossil fuels, which have provided much to the developing world, now threaten the world's poor and all civilization. The World Bank will no longer fund large fossil fuel projects for the poor, instead supporting mitigation and adaptation efforts.

    moneytrail, while I did enjoy reading science fiction as a kid, I strongly recommend reading scientific websites and sources for making your investment and planetary survival decisions. Start with NASA or National Geographic, something enjoyable and interesting to you. Or for an investor, look into food and water resource sites.

    Global warming has been verified through 12 observable lines of inquiry, no computer models or predictions required. It happened in your lifetime and will continue. It is science fact, confirmed with simple physics, observations, and arithmetic, by underpaid humans all over the world, the same way we figured out that the earth was not flat, the sun did not revolve around earth, and we could put a man on the moon, with the scientific method and empirical evidence.

    Our kids don't know that their house is an oven and we're all trapped inside. But we do know.

    And we know the solutions.

    What should we do?

    How should we play carbon energy in 2013?

    I ask that you consider other investments, conserve energy, and plant some trees quick.

    My kids can't fix this without you.

  • Report this Comment On December 20, 2012, at 11:17 AM, moneytrail wrote:

    Interdependent - Science isn’t democracy, it is irrelevant how many scientists believe something. Truth is the final arbiter.

    When science is funded by governments and foundations that expect an outcome, e.g.- global warming; those scientists who present opposite data are excluded from future consideration for grants. This is no different from a hydro-carbon company funding a study concluding that hydro-carbons do not cause warming. Many would find the conclusions suspect. In short, the “climate change” gang is a liberal interest group that pushes for centralized government control of industry; hence, pure science is not its objective, political ideology is. Most astute, non-ideological people instinctively sense these biases and react accordingly.

    Nevertheless, the important point is whether enough people and capital subscribe to your position to support radical transformations in energy production. After 40, plus, years of hammering the public with the climate change “religion” fewer people in the general public and investor groups believe it. So, you can try to force it down peoples’ throats, as our and other leftist governments are trying to do, or you can focus on solutions.

    As an investor, I prefer to seek technological solutions to this real or imagined problem, seeking investments in energy sources that pollute less than current technologies. There are many promising prospects to consider that will bring about economically viable change within decades.

    If you are correct and the problem reaches levels that affect people’s lives, materially, the status quo will change. The process for change will accelerate because the market will expand, more capital will flow into relevant projects and an increasing number of investors will be attracted to the more promising prospects.

    However, until this occurs, governments such as India (which has rejected non-economic solutions to the alleged problem), China, Indonesia, most of Africa and Latin America, will not participate in schemes to increase the cost of energy production based on the claims of academia, Hollywood, Al Gore and Obama, because they cannot afford to adopt an approach that will cause more of their already malnourished populations more stress.

    The problem is technological and will be thus solved. Hence, astute investors are continually on the lookout for promising economic solutions, some of which are on the horizon and have been identified by investment publications such as MF.

    Best of luck!

  • Report this Comment On December 21, 2012, at 12:48 AM, MountainManMike wrote:

    Interdependent, thanks for the article and for trying to make a difference. Acceptance of the truth by the public is gaining, I look forward to when the clean energy movement reaches critical mass. It will be interesting.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2012, at 8:20 AM, interdependent wrote:

    One of the world's most important climate deniers in science recently finished a study designed to drive a nail in the coffin of global warming science. His study was funded by Charles Koch. He set out to prove that other variables could explain the warming climate record just as well as human-caused CO2. He undertook the most detailed review of the climate record yet in order to prove his theory.

    Please read his brief op-ed:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-...

    Science funded by "agenda-driven" dirty energy money just published the exact same results as the conspiracy theory moneytrail put forward about an academic "gang".

    Left-wing conspiracy or not, comparing an entire body of verifiable testable academic scientific research around the world against the profit-driven, coordinated, self-interests of a handful of the wealthiest corporations, seems more than misleading...

    Whatever left-wing conspiracy you dream up about government control, there is nothing that compares to what oil and coal money has done. It has literally moved mountains, poisoned oceans, spewed toxins everywhere it goes, and lied about the dangers. Yet that money always follows the laws, because it can afford to buy them.

    Right-wing institutes funded by corporations manage to influence academic research. The Koch brothers alone spent millions on 20 years of doubt and misinformation to successfully shift public opinion on global warming and to silence elected officials. So even while the science grows stronger, while the rest of the world waits for the number 1 polluters on earth to take a stand, yet North America is not under the spell of climate scientists. We blindly refuse to accept an observable, established scientific process that now promises to lead to certain catastrophe if we ignore it any longer without taking decisive bold action.

    And let's be clear, the science has never been discredited. For all the money spent challenging the movement and the scientists, the science itself always holds up.

    "Pure science" warns people of immediate danger whether or not it can eliminate that danger. We can predict hurricanes, but we haven't been able to stop them. Should we stop predicting them unless we can offer a fix? I am sorry scientists haven't come up with the solution to sell us, but that's what corporations do well. While corporations have been selling us the problem, which they want to keep selling us, Scientists do not have plans to take over our government, or a product to push. Your conspiracy is backwards.

    Perhaps if you replaced the word scientists with "corporations" it makes more sense? Carbon energy corporations do have a need for centralized control of government so they can influence a few key officials and win access to cheaper resources. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is the well-documented history of the oil industry.

    It ain't China's fault. China will follow our lead. That's where we make all our stuff. All those emissions are for US companies and products. India and China could rapidly return to an agrarian culture much more quickly than the "developed" world if they shut down factories and power plants this week.

    I'm glad astute investors are looking for solutions, But, scientifically speaking, waiting time is up. We need to make big changes now, whether or not the market provides a consumable solution that makes profit. Adding renewable energy to the grid does not cut CO2, but shutting down coal plants does. Shutting off coal plants and not shipping the coal overseas does slow down CO2 emissions. Leaving coal and oil in the ground. Burning less. Only then does adding renewables to the grid make a difference to people's comfort level.

    Technological solutions that don't exist yet will tend to require more energy-intensive manufacturing and new infrastructure. That's the cause of global warming, not the solution.

    Here's a simple easy step anybody can take:

    Give up dirty energy investments. Switch to another sector. You might find a better return. Painless. If enough small and large investors divest from a planet-killing industry, they will take notice. 350.org has launched a divestment campaign. Contact your alma mater. Talk to your CFO. Meet your local councilman.

    Don't pad your retirement portfolio with the blood money of 2014. Why trade our grandkids' futures for a stock that can only make a profit by spewing more CO2 into the sky? Why, when you can find that same return somewhere else? You can look your kids in the eye this Christmas. Do your best for them.

    Invest in the future. Long-term.

    Who says humans aren't powerful enough to change the planet?

    Look at the tar sands operations:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

    And look at Felix Finkbeiner:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzksgMrS_7o

    Shut off the CO2 and plant the new trees.

  • Report this Comment On December 22, 2012, at 8:47 AM, interdependent wrote:

    from moneytrail: "If you are correct and the problem reaches levels that affect people’s lives, materially, the status quo will change. The process for change will accelerate because the market will expand, more capital will flow into relevant projects and an increasing number of investors will be attracted to the more promising prospects."

    How much more does it have to affect people's lives? We shaved off some %age GDP this year because of extreme weather, water aquifers are running low, the forests went up in flame and smoke, again, and you think after it gets bad we will have time to expand markets and stabilize the climate? It has taken us decades to do this to the climate. How quickly do you think we can turn the entire planet around and back away from the climate cliff after we have run headlong off of it?

    It takes time. What the scientists have been telling us all along. 'Act now or it will cost trillions more later.' Again they don't profit off of these 'investment tips'. It's not a money-making strategy. It's conservation of resources and increasing chances of survival.

    Who pays those big investments after climate change has gotten so bad it affects people's lives "materially"? I hope you are not suggesting some big government bailout of a global warming meltdown? Are you suggesting the earth is too big to fail? Who is supposed to pick up the bill? The carbon polluters? Well that would get passed on to the consumers. So we will end up paying for the rampant irresponsible consumption. But in other countries, the world's poor will pay a higher price. They did not consume, pollute, or enjoy the benefits of the carbon that made our lives so easy. But they will pay at least as high a price willful blindness.

    With people out of work, food prices spiking, and extreme weather events (flooding droughts storms) taking a greater toll on the world economy than it did this year, exactly what is it that the markets are then going to proliferate?

    If it is windmills and solar panels, we can do that now. No waiting required. And if it's some skyhook not in production yet, then we can't wait because who will pay for it when people are hurting more?

    The whole point of climate prediction from 1981 was to prepare, to change course now (back then), because the warming gets built into the atmosphere for the next 30 - 50 years. If we wait until the impacts are severe, then the heat keeps heating beyond severe for at least a few more decades. And it seems like it's bad enough to me already, knowing that this next decade will be more extreme than the last one.

  • Report this Comment On December 23, 2012, at 10:26 PM, J6R wrote:

    I own a small stake in GE. 1) wind turbines, clean energy,not constrained by dark of night ,like solar. 2) more expensive and cleaner jet engines, 3) dual power nat. gas and diesel engines on the drawing board. 4) They are back paying dividends which just increased by 11% .#4 does not have anything to do with being a tree-hugger. I can be a tree-hugger and still try to make money. Long GE.

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2013, at 4:15 AM, thidmark wrote:

    Maybe we should stop legalized infanticide before we "save the planet."

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2013, at 6:39 PM, 1sweet1 wrote:

    Re Nuclear energy, "it's still a safe and clean form of energy generation." the words in quotes were a link to another article. As a person who doesn't trust nuclear energy/ our ability to run nuclear plants safely, I was looking for some good arguments to change my opinion. Couldn't even find anything about nuclear in the article.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2159714, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/26/2014 5:51:31 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement