【Combing international news and timeline】

 

1) In September 2020, China announced that carbon emissions will peak in 2030 and carbon neutrality will be in 2060

2) On April 17, 2021, China and the United States issued an official statement that the two countries will work together with other countries to solve the climate crisis

 

3) On April 22, 2021, Biden promised that by 2030, the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared with 2005;

 

4) On June 23, 2021, China announced that buildings must strictly comply with the proportion of solar power supply (at least 50% for party and state-related buildings, at least 40% for schools, hospitals, etc., at least 30% for factories and roofs, and at least in rural areas. 20%)

 

5) On July 14, the European Union decided to impose a border tax on carbon emissions for the first time in history in 2026.

See the direction of all the great powers?

 

This outlet is the general direction of China, the United States and the European Union, and whoever succeeds in grabbing the beach first will have a better future. So you say that major countries can spend less money by throwing money at it? The tuyere is all made by money. This tuyere that the whole world hits together would be difficult to get to the sky.

 

【Reasons for big countries to reduce carbon emissions】

 

So why does every major country have to reduce carbon emissions?

Because if you don't do this, the whole world will end together! The problem we all face together is global warming.

At present, the temperature on the earth has increased by an average of 1 degree Celsius since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to this trend, it is expected that the temperature will increase by an average of 3-5 degrees Celsius in 2100, which is absolutely a disaster for mankind.

 

At that time, the melting of ice sheets and glaciers will accelerate, and coastal cities will suffer the first impact - and developed countries all over the world will definitely have port cities with vigorous economic activities. At that time, these cities will be flooded and no one can afford the economic losses.

 

Therefore, reducing carbon emissions is a common challenge faced by the whole world (in fact, in the end, it is also to save ourselves). If you can't do it, everyone will go to the Netherlands together.

 

So what we must know is that it is imperative to reduce carbon emissions!

 

Then why do you say that whoever succeeds in grabbing the beach first will have a better future?

 

First of all, the first point - the success of the beach, the manufacturing industry will return to the big country

When the United States, the European Union, and China are spending a lot of money on building new energy infrastructure, do you think they will make countries that ignore carbon emissions better off?

 

So naturally, the European Union announced a carbon emission tax on July 14. This is the beginning of a history. I believe that the United States and China, which are spending a lot of money, will gradually follow up and collect carbon emission tax, otherwise the big countries will smash it. Money, as a result, developing countries are still burning coal to generate electricity and expand manufacturing, right?

 

Therefore, once the carbon tax is implemented (it seems to be a trend at present), developing countries (including Malaysia) will be very strong. Think about it, if the carbon tax is 10% (conservatively estimated), what manufacturing companies can survive? (many margins in the manufacturing industry are below 10%), after all, more than 70% of developing countries usually use coal-fired power or natural gas for power generation.

 

Therefore, if the construction of new energy is done well, the manufacturing industry will face another wave of immigration in the future, and enterprises will once again return to these large countries (especially China, after all, the cost and industrial system have advantages).

 

The second point - energy cost advantage

 

I checked on Wikipedia, and in 2020 the cost of coal-fired power generation is $160/MW, and the cost of natural gas power generation is $170/MW, while wind and solar are only around $45/MW.

The point is that the price of coal-fired and natural gas power generation will increase with the starting price of raw materials, but basically the price of solar energy and wind energy will only get cheaper and cheaper (technological progress + the energy source itself is natural).

 

In other words, the money spent on energy will be saved (and a lot), and this wealth will improve the overall quality of human life to a greater extent.

 

For example: if the electricity bill is not included, the price of food can definitely be greatly reduced (food processing consumes a lot of electricity, or the cost of artificial breeding/growing vegetables was very expensive before, but with cheap energy, the output can be doubled without increasing the cost), And the products of the industry itself can also be greatly reduced in price, and energy is not a scarce resource (solar and wind energy is inexhaustible), so there is no need to worry about resource problems (oil rising to $1,000 will not cause inflation)

 

So how important is this! In the future, if the whole country uses new energy to generate electricity, won't its manufacturing industry beat the whole world? The cost advantage is definitely appropriate, plus the blessing of carbon emission tax, it is basically open to the sky.

 

That’s why we will see big powers rushing to the beach in recent years. Just like the news list at the beginning of this article, the construction of big powers in this area will definitely intensify in the next few years, so I say that this outlet is very certain. .

 

The point is here, so as an investor, how do we take advantage of the dividends of this wave of times?

 

First,

Solar energy and wind energy are new energy sources that are constantly improving in technology and will become more and more important in the future. So to deploy the track, these two tracks are indispensable (I personally prefer solar energy).

But there is a problem with energy transmission, because solar energy is not available all day, and the wind is not always windy, so it's time to talk about the second track -

 

Second, UHV power transmission.

The logic is probably that if there is a connected UHV transmission grid in the world, then when the sun goes down in the east, solar energy can be supplied by the west, then the problem of power outages will be solved. Of course, this is a relatively bold idea, but if new energy is popularized, this is a power transmission device that is very likely to be needed, and the market is huge.

The third is nuclear energy.

 

Although the cost of nuclear energy is higher than that of solar wind energy, because the power supply is stable, and the power generation cycle that the nuclear power unit can maintain is 40-60 years (20-25 years for solar energy), it is also a good option to replace thermal power generation in long-term benefits.

 

These are some of the sub-sectors in new energy that I think, and related companies, online information is not difficult to find. And if you want to keep it simple, just go directly to the ETF of a basket of stocks related to the theme.

 

This trend is unstoppable, and as long as we recognize the right direction and trend, time will be your best friend for profit.