Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming

THE PENGUIN PRESS

Published by the Penguin Group

Penguin Group (USA) LLC

375 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10014

USA • Canada • UK • Ireland • Australia New Zealand • India • South Africa • China

penguin.com

A Penguin Random House Company

First published by The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, 2014

Copyright © 2014 by McKenzie Funk

Penguin supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book and for complying with copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing Penguin to continue to publish books for every reader.

Photographs by the author

ISBN 978-0-698-15156-7

Version_1

For Jenny and Wilson.

(Mostly, she says, for him.)

CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

COPYRIGHT

DEDICATION

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE

THE MELT

1.
COLD RUSH:
Canada Defends the Northwest Passage

2.
SHELL GAMES:
When an Oil Company Believes in Climate Change

3.
GREENLAND RISING:
An Independence Movement Heats Up

4.
FATHER OF INVENTION:
Israel Saves the Melting Alps

PART TWO

THE DROUGHT

5.
TOO BIG TO BURN:
Public Fires, Private Firefighters

6.
UPHILL TO MONEY:
Where Water Runs When It Runs Out

7.
FARMLAND GRAB:
Wall Street Goes to South Sudan

8.
GREEN WALL, BLACK WALL:
Africa Tries to Keep the Sahara at Bay; Europe Tries to Keep Africa at Bay

PART THREE

THE DELUGE

9.
GREAT WALL OF INDIA:
What to Do About the Bangladesh Problem

10.
SEAWALLS FOR SALE:
Why the Netherlands Loves Sea-Level Rise

11.
BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING:
Climate Genetics

12.
PROBLEM SOLVED:
Our Geoengineered Future

EPILOGUE:
MAGICAL THINKING

PHOTOGRAPHS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NOTES ON SOURCE

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

T
he contract had called for either a boa or an anaconda, whichever would best handle the crowds, and in the end the bankers got the latter: a green anaconda, six feet long and eighty-five pounds, which hung from the neck of a long-haired snake handler who lurked amid the exotic plants, next to the fake waterfall and the model dressed in “Amazonian” garb. Nearby were two scarlet macaws in wire cages, a Brazilian dance troupe, and a hut offering free organic smoothies. At the base of an eighteen-foot waterfall were giant koi, swimming in a pond: forty-five hundred gallons of warm, filtered water that would soon be dumped into the East River. The jungle was in a tent that was on the promenade at the South Street Seaport, in lower Manhattan. Thirty by sixty feet, suffused with a light mist, and heated to eighty degrees, the tent had white sides and a clear roof through which visitors could just make out the skyscrapers of Wall Street. It was cold outside, a typical thirty-nine-degree February day in early-twenty-first-century New York, so those beckoned inside by the street team—two models walking the streets to entice passersby to the event—had to quickly shed their jackets and scarves, so stark was the difference in temperature. Which was, of course, the point.

The stunt was a coming-out party, the most expensive stop on Deutsche Bank’s eighty-event “The Investment Climate Is Changing” road show held across the United States. In scale and imagination, it was rivaled only by the ski village and ninety-foot snowboard slope the bank had constructed a few weeks earlier along Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills: chalets decorated with deer-antler chandeliers and wooden snowshoes, Deutsche Bank–branded ice sculptures, models dressed as snow bunnies, bottled water from Iceland, faux snow blown down from the roof of the Versace store, thirty tons of more realistic snow created by a wood chipper and a freezer truck full of ice blocks, and two pro snowboarders who would later complain that nobody had built them a proper jump. Together, the Manhattan and Beverly Hills events cost $1.5 million, but they were carbon neutral, the bankers boasted, their greenhouse emissions offset by investments in a biogas project in India. At South Street Seaport, every attendee was given a certificate from the Carbon Credit Company as proof. The jungle party, which lasted three hours, produced 152 tons of greenhouse gases, which the average Indian would need three lifetimes to match.

Before a DJ set by the Brazilian Girls—a group with no actual Brazilians and only one girl—the bankers held a press conference. It was early 2008, and as the world was still reeling from a record melt in the Arctic and a scary film by Al Gore and a bleak report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), half a dozen major investment houses had launched global-warming-themed mutual funds. Deutsche Bank’s was the $2.9 billion DWS Climate Change Fund. The jungle event was meant to promote it. “Without taking a position on climate change,” a press release had explained, the “DWS Climate Change Fund is on the cutting edge of climate change investing.” The event’s objective was “not simply to show that climate change is happening,” said the executive Axel Schwarzer, “but that it creates related climate change investment opportunities.” Another release went further. “The debate around climate change is shifting away from cost and risk,” it said, “toward the question of how to capitalize on exciting opportunities.” Nothing as big and universal as climate change could be all bad. An ecological catastrophe was not necessarily a financial catastrophe for everyone.

Deutsche Bank’s chief climate strategist, Mark Fulton, worked in midtown in a building on Park Avenue, and I visited him there after the road show was done, clearing security and then riding a silent elevator to the twenty-seventh floor. His was a corner office, but it was small and cluttered with papers, and Fulton, an Oxford-educated Australian, looked as much scientist as capitalist. His desire to fight climate change was genuine. He told me he’d read the Club of Rome’s
Limits to Growth
—a neo-Malthusian take on the planet’s carrying capacity—as a schoolboy in the 1970s. “It made quite an impact,” he said. “They were talking about everything running out: ‘What are we going to do? We have to change the way we live!’” Instead of working for Greenpeace, which he’d considered after graduation, he became a stockbroker, then an analyst, and he’d eventually helped Deutsche Bank identify global warming as a “megatrend” that could generate profits for decades. “It’s always helped me, climate change, in my career,” he joked.

While the DWS fund invested most heavily in the technology to build a greener world—in wind power and solar power, in smart grids and smarter electrical meters—it had bought other stocks, too: companies that fit the portfolio not because they could help fight climate change but because the warmer the world, the less habitable it became, the bigger the windfall. They were a tacit recognition that we were already failing to stop climate change. There was the planet’s largest water company, Veolia, which manages pipes and builds desalination plants in seventy-four countries on five continents. Monsanto and Syngenta, ag-biotech giants that were tweaking genes to develop drought-resistant crops. And Viterra, a fast-growing agribusiness in temperate Canada. The fund also had shares of Duoyuan Global Water, one of the biggest water-treatment companies in desiccating China, and two fertilizer multinationals, Yara and Agrium. When I asked Fulton how the bank planned to capitalize on rising sea levels, he mentioned a small play in a Dutch dredging company, Royal Boskalis, which had just rebuilt an island in the Maldives inundated by the 2004 tsunami. “Where are you going to get seawall expertise but from the Dutch?” he asked.

Other climate investors told a similar story. They bought clean tech, green tech, the building blocks of the new, low-carbon economy—but they were also starting to hedge. In London, the Schroder Global Climate Change Fund was investing in Russian farmland—cheap, fertile soil suddenly made dear by milder winters and drought-fueled global food crises—and its manager was taking the logic a step further, buying stock in supermarket chains such as Carrefour and Tesco. “If climate change will be a negative for crop yields,” he told me, “then people will just have to spend more on food. Retailers are a clear beneficiary.” Across town, another fund manager explained why he was bullish on the reinsurers Munich Re and Swiss Re. “As natural disasters start to be more common,” he said, “as climate change starts to cause flooding and droughts, insurance companies—reinsurers in particular—should get pricing power.” Because it allows insurers to jack up rates, “hurricane season is actually quite a positive thing.” A partner at a storied Wall Street investment bank showed me photographs of Ukrainian farmland and said his firm had tried to buy up “vast tracts” of it. Soviet-era collective farms had reverted to “pseudo-subsistence agriculture,” he said. “You could come to these guys and get thousands of hectares for a few bottles of vodka and, like, two months of grain. You could literally give them vodka and grain.”

In the run-up to successive climate conferences in Copenhagen, Cancún, Durban, and Doha, as everyone else was fretting about polar bears and electric cars, some fund managers worried I would misunderstand them—that I would mistake them for starry-eyed activists, that I would mistake theirs for just another green or socially responsible fund. “A lot of people think, ‘How do you invest in climate change?’ and essentially come up with one or two or maybe three areas, like alternative energy,” Sophie Horsfall, a manager of Britain’s F&C Global Climate Opportunities Fund, told me. “For us, well, there is an awful lot more to it. We have to separate out the ethical values. We have to move away from the environmental issues. We have to take a step back.” I must have looked puzzled. “We have to think about the reality of climate change,” she continued. “It is quite difficult, isn’t it?”

 • • • 

FOR DECADES WE
have all known, at some level, about global warming. As a point of scientific inquiry it is decades old, first identified in the 1800s by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, but as a source of popular anxiety and conversation it dates to the first sophisticated computer models of the early 1970s and the first World Climate Conference in 1979 and landmark congressional testimony by the NASA atmospheric physicist James Hansen in 1988. It has been around long enough to become a cliché—I thank it for the heat wave I’m experiencing in Seattle as I write this—and long enough to have birthed a newer cliché: the idea that we have so changed the planet with our engineering and our emissions that we now live in the Anthropocene, a new geologic epoch of man’s own creation. Long enough, certainly, for something to have been done about it. In the new millennium, which has brought us Al Gore’s
Inconvenient Truth,
Lord Nicholas Stern’s seven-hundred-page
Economics of Climate Change,
and a string of failed climate legislation and UN conferences, the warnings have been ever louder and more sustained. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, our principal contribution to the climate and the principal driver of warming, has only been rising. It is now 40 percent higher than preindustrial levels, higher than it has been anytime in the last 800,000 years. In New York’s Madison Square Garden, a seventy-foot doomsday clock, recently unveiled by Deutsche Bank, is tracking greenhouse-gas levels in real time: 2 billion metric tons added each month, or 800 a second, for a total of 3.7 trillion tons and counting. The ticker has thirteen red digits, but when you stare at it from Seventh Avenue, the last three are a blur. They’re spinning too quickly to see.