RE:You might not want to watch thisGreat post - lots to think about
For what it's worth here's my take....
The world will/is moving to a less carbon centric world. The speed at which this change takes place is a matter of debate IMO. A debate on the speed is only important if one is a short term investor. For long term investors, the fact that it will happen is what is important.
This then leads to the question of what is the best investment strategy.
History has shown over and over again, that to invest in "the eye of the storm" can pay big returns or the opposite. What I mean by that is for example to pick which company will emerge as the best investment in terms of the production of EVs can be fraught with risk. So right now many people are picking TSLA. While this company may well win the race, it's current stock valuation is very high conpared to other auto producers and so in order to get a return it is priced for pefection and this is the risk.
So what is better investment strategy?
For me, over the years when I saw things like this (and yes it has happened before), I looked at what was going on and tried to find companies to invest in which would be successful no matter who the primary winner would be. While, for me, this has been profitable, it is also a lower risk option/approach.
So what does this mean?
As I have mentioned in past posts, there are two things that will happen no matter what
1...there will be a greater need for the production of electricity
2...there will be electrical grid issues and a greater emphasis on local and dispatchable electricity generation (ie off grid production and storage of electricity)
So investing in those companies that produce electricity and have/developing technologies to address the grid issues will produce a great return at relatively low risk.
This is where my money is going.