Infrastructure ETFs Aren't the Only Things That Can Be Helped by Obama

President-elect Barack Obama has emphasised that he wants to spark the hurting economy in an eco-friendly way, which may be good news for green companies and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in other areas besides strictly infrastructure.

Obama has declared that he plans on creating 2.5 million green jobs, increasing the energy-efficiency of federal buildings and updating the country’s power grids, while others say the resources could go toward carbon capture and storage and the construction of wind turbines, says Sarah Gardner from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk.

The Nature Conservancy’s Bob Benidick has different aspirations, pushing projects deemed as green infrastructure, more specifically, wetlands like the Everglades. His philosophy is that if infrastructure like highways are going to be revamped or newly constructed, they ought to be as green as possible, respecting the water systems and wildlife.

A coalition of 17 different enviornmental groups is expected to pitch their stimulus spending proposals to Washington. We will see who is the most convincing.

Some ETFs that may be influenced include:

iPath Global Carbon ETN (GRN): down 35.7% since its inception on July 8

iShares S&P Global Infrastructure Index (IGF): down 43.6% year-to-date

Comments

[John Lounsbury:]

The way things are going, 2.5 million new jobs (clean energy) may be far too small in the grand scheme of things (economically). It is not difficult to project 2-3 times (or more) that number of job losses for 2008-2009. Can we grow an equally large number of jobs in other infrastructure?

An alternative possibility: Job creation through direct government stimulus may face such strong headwinds from economic misery that it will be slowed and not achieve currently proposed targets in the near term.

I agree that a major new economic revolution in energy technology is starting, but it may start more like the technology revolution started in the 1970's than as tsunami over the next 5-10 years. The immediate benefit of a tsunami would probably be paid for with another bubble collapse by 1920, so the more gradual start might not be a bad thing in the long term. The down side is the extended pain over the next 2-3 years and the extended time of high dependence on fossil fuels, as well as the imported oil financial and security exposure

2008 Dec 12 01:56 PM