[andreasklinger]

I think people here underestimate how much money will be made in climate tech in the next decades.

It's literally changing the map of the world, shifting the access (and use) of resources and the livelihood of people worldwide.

Not that i think it's a good thing that this needs to exist but mitigation and adaption to this change will be a huge industry.

[ajsharp]

100%. The market is fundamentally different than it was the last time "green tech" tried to become a thing. Solar is nearly at price parity with fossil fuels. The space is currently exploding and will transform the world in the next 10-20 years. In many ways it already is (see: Tesla).

[beambot]

Why does that need a separate, dedicated fund? If the time is ripe, shouldn't the opportunities fit within the existing VC paradigm...?

[justicezyx]

What are some etf/sticks you are following in this category?

(Not asking investment advice)

[olau]

For wind, take a look at the companies in the FAN ETF. There's a similar one for PV: TAN ETF. Great puns, really.

[bart_spoon]

ICLN and TAN are two popular ones.

[carapace]

But isn't that just a (vast) instance of the "Broken Window" fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

> The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.

[philipkglass]

It would be an example if the parent advocated for breakage. But the historical breakage is vast already. It's still ongoing. Parent is just pointing out that it's going to be a good time for glaziers.

[tuatoru]

No.

A lot of the assets that will be replaced (vehicles, power plants, etc.) would have been replaced anyway, because they are or soon will be worn out. That's just business as usual.

The difference is that instead of being replaced with carbon-emitting tech, they will be replaced with modern low emission technology. That's just Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction at work.

[lbarrow]

Sure, but the broken window fallacy basically just serves to illustrate that there are opportunity costs when we spend resources on fixing something. The benefits we get from these investments are still real, they're just less than what we might have gotten otherwise.

To put it another way - climate change is sure to be a disaster, but if we get better recycling technology, more efficient cars, pollution-free power generation and other improvements as part of the work of fighting it, that's at least a silver lining.

[oh_sigh]

That sounds like a lot of money will be spent more than necessarily a lot made?

[kingnothing]

If one person is spending money, someone else is receiving it.

[Aachen]

Not necessarily. Bitcoin is the easiest example but it works to varying extents the same way with any supply and demand product (like currencies as well): if someone discovers an issue with bitcoin, nobody wants to own it anymore. The first person to sell is probably happy, but as soon as buyers catch on, the value has disappeared without anyone receiving another penny. If a publicly traded company is suddenly not expected to make more money, its shares become worthless. Nobody received money proportional to the value loss.

I think you're mostly right in this case since we'll need solutions and we'll pay dearly, but value/wealth/money being lost isn't necessarily coupled to someone else getting rich. If people suddenly can't inhabit certain plots of land anymore, they're not selling it at previous market rates anymore; their value is just lost.