How Activists Should Engage Fossil Fuel Companies

所以你被要求剥离你的化石燃料持股，以抵抗气候变化。即使对这些股票的需求下降暂时按下价格，市场逻辑也表明，阿尔诺尔议会猎人将抢购，价格将恢复基于贴现现金流量的内在估值。

然而，有些人指出，那些现金流量本身就是风险，因为世界将不可避免地唤醒人类导致气候变化的危险，并将价格施加到碳的价格缓慢消耗化石燃料，搁浅的碳储备“不可用的碳。“换句话说：剥离自身利益。

Divestment campaigns on other issues have sought to persuade the targets to change their behavior — for example, pressuring multinational companies to discontinue trading with and operating in apartheid South Africa.

相比之下,传统能源公司如何s respond to a divestment campaign, since they are inescapably in the business of producing and selling fossil fuels? Similarly, what can shareholders who reject the divestment path and prefer engagement, and even activism, ask fossil fuel companies to do? Activists have long urged corporate transparency in disclosing carbon-related risks, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has supported this with recent rulings.

但典型的否则问题是，无论是如何以及多态燃料利益如何以及如何在近期重定向到哪些（并且最终全部）其可投资的现金流量，如勘探和生产等勘探活动，以投资清洁能源。

股东活动家可以促进这一点，但是，与撤资活动一样，他们会反对市场基本面，因为从清洁能源的回报通常低于来自化石燃料的回报。

该等式在某些方法方面提高 - 太阳能项目回报，例如，随着中国人推动了面板成本，并在其他方面增加了更多的不利。2011年BP退出太阳能2011年，2013年的风，可再生补贴减少，从而降低自然天然气价格和诱导页岩气体的投资机会。也就是说，BP从“超越石油”回归基础。

Like ExxonMobil, BP continues to invest in alternative fuels, but as an ancillary to its oil business and driven mostly by biofuel blending mandates. Chevron has dipped a big toe into efficiency services and geothermal, and other oil majors reportedly have active, secretive labs where they plot to win in a post-oil future.

But clean-energy investing has remained a sideshow to fossil fuel companies’ primary focus on replacing and growing reserves. That leaves them exposed to future de facto expropriation through prohibitive carbon pricing or draconian regulation once the world gains conviction that it cannot safely burn more than an estimated one-fifth of current reserves and stay under the climate change danger threshold.

碳定价 - 无论是否通过概要贸易或碳税 - 将增加消耗化石燃料的成本，并通过设计使得清洁能量相对较具竞争力。这将随着时间的推移转移需求模式;然而，在自己的情况下，碳定价可能不会刺激足够的资本形成，以扩大避免气候变化最危险的最危险影响所需的幅度和时间框架中的清洁能源。

But maybe there is a bargain to strike. What if fossil fuel interests are indeed pressured but also incentivized to begin a fundamental investment reallocation?The government could pay a substantial portion of the revenue generated by carbon pricing back to fossil fuel companies on the condition that they agree to allocate every dime of it to clean-energy investments and to commit a proportional ratio of internal cash flow to the same.

This free leverage from an infusion of government-supplied capital could boost risk-adjusted returns from portfolios of clean-energy investments to be comparable to those provided by E&P projects. In fact, the payment level could be set in pursuit of this return equivalence objective. It could also reduce companies’ portfolio volatility, since the risk profile of structured, long-duration clean-energy cash flows compares favorably to that of many E&P projects.

如果提前制作了这样的交易，它可以减少化石燃料公司对抗碳价格的反对，这是政治瘫痪的根本原因。它会将它们变成真正多样化的能源公司，以未来的低碳经济持有物质股份，同时利用其大规模工程，项目管理和财务和风险建模竞争力，代表曼哈顿项目级别的清洁量表能源。一些技能集是可显着的可转换：海上石油钻井平台到海上风力涡轮机，提取地下油和气体，以利用钻井技术限制的普遍存在的硬岩地热能。

最重要的是，它将产生迅速扩大低碳替代品所需的长缺失的资金洛德，而他们注定要留下（尽可能多的假设）2050年全球能源组合的一小部分。企业和项目在建筑物，工业和供应链中，在太阳能，地热，风，风电，电力存储，综合发电和电力，运输电气化和转型效率的风险奖励频谱上提供投资机会。

Rough figures from the back of an envelope: If all 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel combustion in 2013 were priced at a moderate $10 per ton (the auction floor price in California’s new cap-and-trade system), it would produce $330 billion in revenue. If governments paid $100 billion of that sum back to the fossil fuel companies, contingent on a 3-to-1 match from reallocation of E&P budgets (which totaled roughly $650 billion worldwide in 2013), that would come to $400 billion per year in clean-energy spending — making a real dent in the $5 trillion incremental spend on clean energy the International Energy Agency has called for by 2020.

Obstacles would abound to such a proposal. First, the market favors oil-and-gas pure plays, not energy conglomerates; and short-term asset growth (and stock appreciation) through drilling over long-tailed project cash flows. Institutional shareholders, though, weigh heavily in the market, and their vulnerability to the stranded-reserve problem should strengthen their resolve to push for change.

Second, moving the needle on fossil fuel company returns would seem to require massive project investments only. But over $1 trillion has been invested in clean energy over the past decade, and its absorption capacity is primed to surge.

Third, carbon pricing opponents fear any government revenue schemes. In this proposal, however, auction revenue would not be used to pick winners through government-administered clean-energy programs; rather, those funds would be returned to the private sector for sophisticated, profit-motivated investment (and the companies whose returns would be most hurt by carbon pricing would be made whole through a prudent incentive payment to diversify).

最后,一个像t的建议的最大障碍his is that taxing people and sending any of the proceeds to fossil fuel companies would be a heavy political lift; many favor using those revenues to fund a dividend back to the people. The prospect of the fossil fuel companies using their own cash to add 3-to-1 leverage to the government payments might soften that opposition.

最终，这将归结为这一实现：为了回报他们已经向现代经济交付的繁荣，化石燃料利益已经长大地脱离了抗佛贝纳的创造性的破坏或剥离;世界可能无法迫切地过渡到低碳经济，而无需利用其现金流量，政治权力和大规模执行能力。

Daniel Abbasi是董事总经理Gamechange Capital.，斯坦福德，康涅狄格州的私募股权公司，寻求为低碳经济提供加速过渡。

也可以看看 ”耶鲁和哈佛都失去了化石燃料剥离游戏”