????如果把人為引起的氣候變化當成必然（95%的科學家都認可這種觀點。順便說一句，這個比例比贊同吸煙致癌的科學家還多），企業會受到什么影響呢？如果你從事的行業是防止海水倒灌，上升的海平面可能是個好消息。如果你從事的是碳氫化合物（主要是石油或煤炭）尋找和開采工作，而它們又用作能源，經燃燒后再次排放到大氣中，氣候變化或許就是一個非常嚴重的問題。

????石油、天然氣和能源公司面臨的潛在問題來自“不可燃碳”假說。這種理論巧妙地指出，能源行業正在迅速地邁向一種兩難境地。它認為，上市石油煤炭開采公司所擁有儲量的碳含量已經超過了可避免危險氣候變化（全球氣溫上升2攝氏度）的安全使用量。隨著各國政府開始通過法規來防止全球氣溫上升，石油煤炭儲量中將有很大一部分不能用來燃燒——不管怎樣，這就是非政府組織Carbon Tracker的觀點。如果沒有那70位投資人，這本來沒有什么大不了的。但是，這70位投資人代表了數百萬客戶的利益，包括加州公務員退休基金（CALPERS）到洛克菲勒公司（Rockefeller & Co.），再到蘇格蘭投資公司Scottish Widows Investment Partnership，掌握著總價值3萬億美元（18.39萬億元人民幣）的資產，而且相信不可燃碳理論。上個月，他們致函世界上最大的45家石油、天然氣、煤炭和公用事業公司（名單在此），呼吁后者防范“現有以及將來可能出現的溫室氣體減排政策給自身儲量帶來的風險……現在人們普遍認為企業進一步將資金用于低回報率項目并不符合投資者的最佳利益。政府的減排政策很可能進一步降低這些項目的回報率。”

????石油和煤炭目前仍然是高效能源，使用廣泛且儲量充足。但開采和使用碳氫化合物的成本不斷上升，再加上全球很多地區的需求正在下降（原因是汽車變得更省油，可替代燃料正在得到改善和更廣泛的使用）如果石油和天然氣公司繼續忽視市場和氣候共同變化所產生的影響，就可能導致一場災難。即使在今天，庫存過多仍會造成美國能源價格下降。這個觀點不是來自Carbon Tracker組織，而是克雷格?麥肯齊發表在負責人的投資者（Responsible Investor）網站上的一篇文章，他同時也是在上面談到的那封信中簽字的70位投資者之一。麥肯齊是Scottish Widows Investment Partnership投資公司可持續發展方面的負責人，后者是歐洲最大的基金管理公司之一【價值約2360億美元（14466.8億元人民幣）】。加州教師退休基金【California State Teachers' Retirement System，管理資產1720億美元（10543.6億元人民幣）】首席執行官杰克?艾內斯在上周四的新聞發布會上談到了這封信，并對麥肯齊的觀點表示贊同。寫這封信的工作由非盈利組織Ceres負責協調，信件也由該組織寄出，Ceres管理著機構投資者組織Investor Network on Climate Risk。艾內斯說：“作為長期投資者，我們認為世界正在向著一個低碳未來邁進。在這樣的未來中，這些公司繼續開采的化石燃料資源實際上可能成為一種負擔，而這也許會對股東所擁有的價值產生不利影響。”

????一封信也許只是一封信。現在還沒有哪位投資者威脅說要撤資，這也不是他們的目的。他們不是激進分子，而是現實主義者。這封信的目的是讓能源行業也面對現實。（財富中文網）

????譯者：Charlie??

????If human-caused climate change is accepted as a certainty -- it is, by 95% of scientists (a higher percentage, by the way, than agree that smoking causes cancer) -- what are the ramifications for business? If you are in the keeping-back-the-sea biz, rising seas will likely be a boon. If you seek out and extract carbon from the earth (oil or coal, mostly) to be burned as energy and released into the atmosphere, climate change might be a very grave problem indeed.

????The potential problem for oil, gas, and energy companies rests on the "unburnable carbon" thesis, which elegantly articulates the rock and hard place the industry is hurtling toward. It states that the amount of carbon embedded in the reserves of the listed oil and coal mining companies is bigger than the amount we can safely emit to avoid dangerous climate change (a 2 degree C rise in temperature). As governments begin regulating to stave off the rise in temperature, much of these reserves will become unburnable -- that's the thesis, anyway, as argued by Carbon Tracker, an NGO. All this wouldn't be a huge deal if it weren't for the fact that 70 investors, representing the interests of millions of customers -- from CALPERS to Rockefeller & Co. to the Scottish Widows Investment Partnership -- worth a collective $3 trillion, believe in the unburnable carbon thesis, and last month wrote a letter to 45 of the biggest oil, gas, coal, and utility companies in the world (here's the full list), calling on them to "reserve exposure to the risks associated with current and probable future policies for reducing GHG [green house gas] emissions ... There is now a widespread view that it is not in the best interest of investors for companies to expend further capital on low-return projects," the letter continues. "Government policies to reduce GHG emissions would be likely to further reduce the returns of these projects."

????Oil and coal are still wildly efficient and abundant energy sources, but the associated costs of both pulling carbon out of the ground and burning it are way, way up. This, coupled with a decreasing demand in much of the world -- cars are more efficient, alternative fuels are getting better, and there are more of them -- is a potential recipe for disaster if oil and gas companies continue to ignore the effects of a market changing along with the climate. Even today, prices have dropped in the U.S. due to excess inventory. This argument isn't from Carbon Tracker but Craig Mackenzie, one of those 70 signers, from an article he published in Responsible Investor. Mackenzie is head of sustainability at the Scottish Widows Investment Partnership, one of Europe's largest fund managers (worth about $236 billion). Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers' Retirement System ($172 billion under management) echoed Mackenzie's argument today in a press call about the letter, which was coordinated and sent out by Ceres, a nonprofit that directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "As long-term investors, we see the world moving toward a low-carbon future in which fossil fuel reserves that companies continue to develop may actually become a liability, which could take a toll on shareholder value," Ehnes said.

????A letter may be just a letter. None of the investors have threatened to pull their money out, that's not their aim. They are not activists, but realists. The purpose of the letter was to get the energy industry to be the same.