Venture Capitalism To the Rescue

theodp writes "Al Gore, Bill Joy, and a Norwegian cutie — a TH!NK open electric car — grace the cover of the latest NYT Magazine, which asks: Can the venture capitalists at Kleiner Perkins reduce our dependence on oil, help stop global warming, and make a lot of money at the same time? While Kleiner Perkins — which funded Genentech, Netscape, Google and others — has a number of other green-tech bets, a partner says its goal is 'to make a lot of money for our investors,' not to save the environment."

Comments

Wow. What a coincidence.

[shadow349]

its goal is 'to make a lot of money for our investors,' not to save the environment."

That's the exact same mission statement as Generation Investment Management.

Making money from VC is OK

[Kupfernigk]

provided they take the long term view. It is no coincidence that the UK Green movement has definitely aristocratic supporters, because an aristocracy tends to think about its grandchildren (to the extent of things like planting trees that will not mature in their own lifetimes, for the sake of future generations.) I like to think that really sophisticated venture capitalists will be planning now for a comfortable retirement in 30-40 years time - and will therefore be worrying about what the world will be like then. Hedge funds are full of people with a short term attitude - anybody who shorts stocks has that - who just assume that they can accumulate so much wealth that they can insulate themselves from everything short of global meltdown. Which has just worked out so well...but real venture capitalists are an engine of progress. Without them no USA (who funded Columbus and the first colonies?), no canals, no trains, no telephone, no modern medicine.

Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Because too many folks in the past, wanting to do good, have started investment funds or invested in things to make a change and lost their shirts.

By stating the obvious (to us anyway), they're letting any potential investors know that they're not going to spend money on losing propositions just to save the planet.

I would also like to add, if they really want green investments to pay off, they should also lobby Congress to get rid of the many oil industry subsidies and tax breaks. That would make oil more expensive - actually, it should allow oil to be priced so that it reflects its true costs. The oil industry is a prime example of how tax and government subsidies can distort a market to the point that one of the most inefficient and polluting fuels had become predominant and other sources of energy have a hard time competing in the market place because of the false reduced costs imposed by Government. I think adding even more tax breaks and subsidies to an energy solution is not the way to go. We need to eliminate the current ones on oil, gas, and coal. And it will help reduce the amount in the tax code.

Re:Obvious

[morgan_greywolf]

Oh, so making the planet inhabitable and inhospitable to human life is going to help the poor?

The cost of oil is going to continue to rise, subsidies or no. At the end of the day, shrinking supply + increasing demand == more $$$$. There's no stopping that force in a free market system. And free market economies are the force driving the global economy, like it or not.

There's no reason why we shouldn't end government subsidies on big oil.

Re:Obvious

[hey!]

Making a better than normal return on investments has always been about timing. Many a sound plan has failed because it was too early or too late.

In the early part of the dot com era, a lot of money was invested on businesses that could not generate cash until man more people had Internet connections at home. Back in the 70's oil crisis lots of creativity was going into alternative energy and conservation technologies -- just before oil prices started to drop. When everyone knows change is coming, most people will lose money getting the timing wrong, and a few will make a lot of money.

That's just investing.

Now consider: if you had to have heart surgery, would you go to a doctor whose specialty was "ethically responsible surgery"? No. You'd go to a surgeon and expect him to be socially responsible. Maybe you'd want to know what his standards of ethics are and how those ethics are enforce. But you wouldn't put yourself in the hands of somebody who uses ethics as branding.

The problem is we don't need SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE investment funds, we need socially responsible INVESTMENT funds. Social responsibility should be something a well run fund has a philosophy and strategy for, like any other aspect of investment. It shouldn't be left to specialists.

I suspect, also, that "social investment", if I may use that term, is also a matter of timing. No investment is likely to be totally free of ethical issues, but economically driven change always happens at the margins: the next dollar spent or not spent. So if you look at a collection of investments, at any time there will be a small number of them where moving some dollars will have a big effect. Choosing to lose money everywhere means you lose money; choosing to lose money in selected places may actually mean you secure your future, since most socially "irresponsible" business practices are short sighted.

That's investing too.

Re:Obvious

[Original Replica]

I considered a "socially repsonsible" investment fund at one point. Then I realized the thing had pathetic returns

Considering that every American taxpayer just got raped to the tune of $850 billion just two days ago, I would have to say that irresponsible investments have pretty pathetic returns as well.

New Yorker cartoon, 9/9/2002

[vrmlguy]

The CEO is giving a speech at a board meeting: "And so, while the end-of-the-world scenario will be rife with unimaginable horrors, we believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for profit."
http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=G41AMWKD2J779JFDMBDRM9CAKAKJ63T5&sitetype=1&did=4&sid=52630&pid=&keyword=end+of+the+world&section=cartoons&title=undefined&whichpage=1&sortBy=popular

Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer

[morgan_greywolf]

OMFG, please MAKE IT STOP.

Look, if people obeyed the traffic laws, drivers and pedestrians alike, then there's no need for any of this crap. Cross the damn road at the signal and look both ways before crossing the damn street. If you're blind, get a fscking seeing eye dog or have a sighted person with you.

Why do people have no fscking common sense?!

Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't assume a perfect system exists when so many external factors are involved. Driving is bluntly letting everybody throw thousands of pounds of steel around. Everybody... is not a promising thought. I speak to you here as someone who spent a few months in a coma and faces long term damage from being hit as a pedestrian by a woman who was distracted by the kids in her back seats. This happened immediately in front of the school I was attending at the time. Shit happens and technology needs to account for shit happening, especially when it is a known element.

Re:They're coming from everywhere

[Nethemas the Great]

Electric Cars are coming from everywhere, in different sizes and shapes, with different concepts. Some will append the electric motor to a a ignition engine generator (making it a hybrid). Some are tricycles using solar back-up power. Others are super-sport cars. It is all very interesting.

And they will all go straight to Europe, Asia, and even South America. But I tell you not a bloody one of them will ever see large deployments here in the US. The market has been brainwashed against them, the laws and regulations are stacked against them, and the US has a failing Ford, GM, and Chrystler. The best the US will get is a 10-20% fuel economy increase on its passenger vehicles. In fact the US has already received an installment on that very thing with the 2008/09 model years.

Even in the high efficiency gas/diesel market I do not believe the US won't see anything in the near term. For example Ford came up with a really nice 65 MPG Fiesta for the 2009 model year. Trouble is, it burns diesel. In the US diesel is taxed heavily under the assumption that the primary market for diesel is the trucking industry, the major contributors to wear and tear on the highways. Recognizing this Ford didn't even plan for a US deployment and set up shop in Great Britain. Factoring the higher labor costs as well as importation expeses and you have a sure guarentee that this car will never see the US shores.

Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer

[fugue]

This argument has been used by Harley assholes for a long time, and it's simply not valid. It may be that louder vehicles give more clues as to their whereabouts--but if that is the case, we should be duct-taping our horns down, or building in beepers and sirens to continuously wail (or wail at variable pitch depending on speed (and direction??)).

Don't get me wrong--I think driving should be made as unpleasant as possible in order to encourage people to use more responsible forms of transportation--but the unpleasantness should be limited to the driver, not to the world at large. Inflicting your noise on your neighbours is sociopathic.