Obama's Climate Plan: The Problems and the Opportunities

By now you know about President Obama's "climate action plan," which was unveiled on a hot Tuesday afternoon at Washington, D.C.'s, Georgetown University. As one who's been in and around the traditional energy industry for some time, I'm attempting to come to grips with what I perceive to be a pair of major difficulties with the president's proposal.

  • Its timing, given that it inevitably will cost the nation jobs and raise energy costs at least somewhat for us all, is irresponsible. It seems absurd to unleash such an employment-threatening program at precisely the time when, as The Wall Street Journal said in an opinion piece on Wednesday, " the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery."
  • The atmosphere doesn't recognize national boundaries. So an individual effort at unilaterally cutting emissions will be meaningless unless energy approaches change in a host of other countries, which is unlikely. That's especially the case in view of the president's admission that "Though all America's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record level."

Will Keystone be blessed?
The president also touched upon TransCanada's (NYSE: TRP  ) proposed Keystone XL pipeline at Georgetown: "Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

It's the global-nature-of-pollution thing again. If the line is disapproved, Canada's oil will be piped west for shipment to China. As such, the issue of "carbon pollution" will essentially be unaffected either way.

Some prudent approaches
So, for Fools with investable approaches on their minds, the question becomes one of the companies or groups that will either benefit from or remain unscathed by President Obama's plan. One sensible direction, it seems to me, is to look to the nation's biggest gas producers. Cleaner-burning gas stands to replace coal as a fuel for power plants that are forced to operate under far stricter emissions standards.

As you probably realize, ExxonMobil   (NYSE: XOM  ) sits high atop that crowd, with Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK  ) and Anadarko (NYSE: APC  )  second and third, respectively. While I admittedly own shares in Chesapeake, I'm especially drawn to it, with its high ratio of gas to oil and its purely domestic operations. Given this mix, the beneficial effects it's likely to feel from increased demand for natural gas should be more directly leveraged to its share prices than with other, more diversified, companies.

Beyond that, you might consider initiating or adding to a position in the ever-popular National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV  ) . The company occupies a vital position in the oil and gas industry as the manufacturer of a number of the components used on drilling rigs. The lion's share of its products are shipped internationally, providing it with significant immunity to the effects of tightening domestic energy policies.

Finally, I'd consider Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB  ) . As I've noted to Fools previously, the big enchilada of oilfield services is easily energy's technological leader, a crucial position in an industry wherein new ways to define reservoirs and produce oil and gas from complex formations becomes increasingly important. The large company also works in dozens of countries and conducts meaningful research operations in such significant locales as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, and, of course, the United States.

The president's new initiative notwithstanding, and given a host of other global and domestic economic issues, I continue to consider energy to constitute an appropriate backbone for Foolish investment portfolios. The aforementioned companies are but a start in an industry that is replete with compelling players.

Are you interested in a more detailed look at the super-popular National Oilwell Varco? If so, check out the special free report: "The Only Energy Stock You'll Ever Need." Don't miss out on this limited-time offer and your opportunity to discover this under-the-radar company before the market does. Click here to access your report -- it's totally free.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (0)

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 June 27, 2013, at 3:48 AM, PurringCat wrote:

    Isn't it great that the internet presents the commentary of such sterling geniuses as David Smith. He so helpfully points out how irresponsible it is for the president to attack such a trifling problem as climate change because doing something about it might cost us some jobs and present higher energy costs.

    Gee David, how right you are! It would certainly be much better for the president to put such measures off so that increasing temperatures take the global climate into an irreversible swoon associated with rising sea levels that submerge such minor little hamlets as NYC, Shanghai, Amersterdam, etc., etc. This is not to mention extreme droughts which destroy croplands throughout the world leading to famines wiping out millions upon millions of starving people. And lets not forget the very increased tendency for extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy.

    Yes, David, your wise and thoughtful criticism of the president is just what one would expect from a myopic American.

    Then again, maybe you should consider seriously the old aphorism: "penny wise and pound foolish". I think that it maybe applies to you.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2512020, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/29/2014 6:23:19 PM

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