Practical analysis for investment professionals
23 June 2021

Green Carrots and Sticks: Incentivizing Climate Solutions

Michael S. Falk, CFA, and Joachim Klement, CFA, are the co-authors of Capitalism for Everyone from the CFA Institute Research Foundation.

Climate change remains a key issue to solve in the coming decade. We say decade because any longer may already be too late.

We all will have to pay a price for burning fossil fuels, but unfortunately the bulk of that price will not be paid by those who burn fossil fuels. It is a classic problem of a negative externality: The profits of an activity — in this case, burning fossil fuels to generate energy — are privatized, while the costs, to human health and the environment, are socialized.

Subscribe Button

In theory, we know how to deal with these issues. We can either regulate the activity, as President Richard Nixon did with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce air and water pollution in the 1970s. Or we can internalize the costs by putting a price on carbon credits or instituting cap-and-trade programs as is common across Europe and is now being introduced in China.

The problem with these approaches is that they are green sticks. They restrict freedom of enterprise and thus are, let’s say, not very popular with the companies that burn fossil fuels. But that does not mean we care about popularity as much as we care about incentives. Big Oil’s resistance to environmental regulation and carbon pricing in the United States has been enormous, though recent events at Exxon and Shell indicate that it may be losing the fight.

Nevertheless, the current price of carbon emissions is generally too low, and is at best 50% of what it should be, according to estimates. Carbon emitters spend a lot lobbying to keep that cost well below the threshold required to encourage the fast and effective change that’s needed to avoid climate change’s worst outcomes.

Ad for Let's All Learn How to Fish . . . To Sustain Long-Term Economic Growth

But regulations will have to go even further than carbon pricing. Do we also need rules to help prevent and manage the risk of stranded assets? In a word, yes.

That got us thinking. . . . Instead of using green sticks to force change, why don’t we use green carrots to entice change? After all, these approaches are not mutually exclusive.

One way to introduce green carrots is to create a market for royalties from R&D into renewable and sustainable energy. Both the oil and gas and mining industries are already among the top developers of green technology patents, yet monetizing this research is difficult. A company can either use the knowhow and roll out the technology in-house, or be stuck with it.

Meanwhile, a mining company that builds a new mine can sell that mine’s future production to royalty companies in return for a lump sum payment. For the royalty company, it is the equivalent of buying an annuity financed with the production of the mine. By the way, the greening of so-called dirty industries has perhaps the greatest potential to counteract climate change.

In the biotech space, companies have already specialized in financing intellectual property (IP) in return for a share of the revenues generated from the finished product. Why is there no such system in place for green technology development?

Tile for Geo-Economics

Right now, US taxpayers receive a tax break for investments in oil exploration projects. Why don’t we close this tax loophole and use the money raised to pay super royalties to energy and mining companies that develop green technologies?

Alternatively, we could support dedicated royalty companies in the green technology space to open a new market. Investors could then invest in the shares of these green tech royalty companies and earn a profit from changing the world instead of saving taxes on burning it.

We could even go a step further and learn from successful venture capital (VC) models in countries like Israel. Today, Israel is one of the world’s leading tech hubs and much of the credit goes to the government-funded business incubator Yozma. In 1993, the government established Yozma by seeding it with $100 million in capital. Yozma supported early-stage ventures in exchange for a stake in the projects of up to 40% — provided private investors financed the rest. After seven years, the investors could pay back the government support from Yozma at face value plus interest. It worked, and in 1998, the VC market in Israel grew large enough for Yozma to be privatized.

This effectiveness of providing a carrot for investments should not be underestimated. Today, Israel spends more on R&D as a share of GDP than any other nation and is second only to the United States in terms of venture capital investments relative to GDP. Israel used carrots to transform its rusty 1990s economy to a modern high-tech one. Why can’t the United States use the same approach to accelerate its transition from a carbon-based economy to a green one and ask Big Oil to lead the way?

Capitalism for Everyone tile

If the carrots are tasty and the incentives are right, oil and mining companies will gladly invest in green technologies. The old adage of doing well while doing good is the way forward for all of us.

And while we may first think of sticks, we should never forget the appeal of carrots.

If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.

All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.

Image credit: ©Getty Images / Vitalina Rybakova

Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.

About the Author(s)
Michael S. Falk, CFA

The late Michael Falk, CFA, CRC, was a partner at the Focus Consulting Group and specialized in helping investment/wealth management teams improve their investment decision making, and their firms with strategic planning and succession. Previously, he was a chief strategist at a global macro L.P., and a chief investment officer in charge of manager due diligence and asset allocation for a multi-billion-dollar advisory practice. He was a frequent speaker and presenter at industry events and often quoted in the press. He taught on behalf of the CFA Society of Chicago in its Investment Foundations Certificate program, was a contributing member in the Financial Management Association’s (FMA) practitioner demand driven academic research initiative (PDDARI) group, and adjunct faculty at DePaul University in its Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Certificate Program. Falk authored or co-authored 2.33 books: the 2016 CFA Institute Research Foundation monograph Let’s All Learn How to Fish . . . to Sustain Long-Term Economic Growth, the 2019 follow-up Get to Work . . . on OUR Future, and, with Jim Ware, CFA, and Keith Robinson, Money, Meaning, and Mindsets.

Joachim Klement, CFA

Joachim Klement, CFA, offers regular commentary at Klement on Investing. Previously, he was CIO at Wellershoff & Partners Ltd., and before that, head of the UBS Wealth Management Strategic Research team and head of equity strategy for UBS Wealth Management. Klement studied mathematics and physics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland, and Madrid, Spain, and graduated with a master’s degree in mathematics. In addition, he holds a master’s degree in economics and finance.

1 thought on “Green Carrots and Sticks: Incentivizing Climate Solutions”

  1. gregory winneke says:

    “We all will have to pay a price for burning fossil fuels, but unfortunately the bulk of that price will not be paid by those who burn fossil fuels. It is a classic problem of a negative externality: The profits of an activity — in this case, burning fossil fuels to generate energy — are privatized, while the costs, to human health and the environment, are socialized.”

    Unfortunately I believe the above statement may be inaccurate and misleading. The only reason any company can achieve a profit, is by providing a good or service which the public wants or needs with a degree of necessity or desire to pay for that good or service. In this case the “public good” willingly paid for that provides the profit on fossil fuels is inexpensive, continually available mobility, comfort of temperate domiciles, and readily available goods through a system of transportation. While the “costs” of burning fossil fuels are to society, so are the “benefits”. Therein is the difficulty. While alternatives have made great gains in both cost and capability, they are yet insufficient to provide the public “benefits” of burning fossil fuels. This may / hopefully be achieved in a timely manner, but pushing cost or restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels more rapidly than the suitability of alternatives can be realized is merely imposing an additional cost / burden on the public. Three issues unfortunately seldom discussed need to be considered. First and foremost what is the realistic timeframe of alternatives matching the cost, comfort, efficiency, and availability of the benefits that arise from burning fossil fuels. Second, is a carbon sink solution together with the technical ability to decarbonize the burning of fossil fuels more or less costly and timely that eliminating fossil fuels. Third man’s proven adaptability to the environment may be over stating the posited risks of climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.