Often when I see the phrase “climate agenda” in a story, I know the author has a fossil fuel or nuclear agenda as is the case here. No one has ever adequately figured out what to do with the highly radioactive form of nuclear waste from plants, which has a half life of thousands of years: https://eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php
While it probably makes sense for nuclear to be part of the energy equation, the notion that the Europeans are somehow foolish for pursuing their “climate agenda” when the earth is on fire and America only just now passed a modest bill to address climate change is far sillier to me.

Yes-I'm sure coal-burning units were considered safer than nuclear plants after Three Mile Island incident(and the eerie and prescient China Syndromerelease earlier.(not entirely snark)

"Global pandemic. Brexit. Turmoil in U.S. politics. Inflation rates unparalleled since the 1980s. And now a war on Ukraine by Russia—a nuclear power.
It’s little wonder that market strategists are scrambling to explain to their clients how “black swan” events (unforeseen catastrophes) and geopolitics have affected stock markets—and how the future is as unpredictable as ever.
“Buckle in,” advises BNY Mellon in one such missive, warning investors to stay prepared for “significant volatility.”
A select group of mutual-fund managers have managed to stay ahead of the curve. Their decisions to seek opportunities in market downturns, like buying attractively priced stocks their peers were overlooking, has helped them not only navigate the turmoil but post some eye-popping returns.
“Beginning early on in the pandemic, we realized that there was a huge disparity in the value of priced-to-perfection large stocks like the giant technology companies, and companies on the other side of the spectrum, like materials and commodities” stocks, says Scott Barbee, manager of Aegis Value Fund (AVALX). “There clearly was a lot of mispricing of both value and risk.”
Mr. Barbee’s conviction that hard assets would get a boost from the end of the pandemic and the conclusion of fiscal stimulus helped propel his fund to the top of The Wall Street Journal’s quarterly ranking of outperforming U.S.-stock mutual funds for the rolling 12 months ended March 31."
WSJ Article
p.s. FWIW, DHAMX and VNSYX were numerous 2&3.

@Crash- Talk is cheap, but how many in our country are clamoring to send American lives into yet another war? What you don't seem to be understanding is that at this point NATO is not involved, and if we go it alone that's exactly where we will be. Alone.
So how exactly would we even get troops near to Ukraine without NATO involvement? Do you really think that the NATO nations bordering Ukraine aren't thinking that Putin might respond with low-yield tactical nuclear weapons if he's pushed into a corner? Do you really think that the US isn't talking to all of them about this?
Talk is cheap. Reality isn't.

I apologize to anyone who feels this thread is not investment related, and I don't know what category it was started in, but as this is a much more reasonable audience to have this discussion with ( compared to Twitter or FB) I would appreciate it if we could continue. I do think unless the conflict ends quickly ( which is unlikely unless Pootin is "disappeared") it could push the world into a recession, because of commodity prices and supply chain disruptions. There are also implications for emerging markets, climate change, and big tech, all of which have to confront the potential "end of globalization"
@Old_Joe
In international relations, there really is no "legal agreement" that is enforceable. Treaties are supposedly not to be broken, but the Russians track record since 1917 is abysmal.
Many people ( including my peace loving Connecticut farm girl Mother) believed we should have used military force against the Russian blockade in 1948, considering Russia did not have a functional atomic bomb until 1949. Taking the airlift way out convinced Stalin that the West was war weary and would not fight to protect democracies in the west. Thus started the Cold War.
Our obligations to Ukraine stem from the Budapest Memorandum, which convinced them it was safe to give up their extensive nuclear arsenal. To convince them to do so, US and NATO agreed to protect them from future Russian aggression. While the language does not specifically say NATO will use military force, it clearly commits us to an obligatory defense of Ukraine in today's circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion
"But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one.
So they had this faith that the West would stand by them, or certainly the United States, the signatories, and Great Britain, would stand up for Ukraine should it come under threat."
In great power politics, intent and projection count, as do standing up to your commitments. While Biden has done a great job unifying NATO and using sanctions to destroy the Russian economy, this will probably not be enough to force Pootin to peace talks. He apparently is willing to destroy Ukraine. A continued war only makes sense if Pootin believes Russia can withdraw economically from the world, confiscate any property of Western firms that refuse to do business with him, and rely on it's energy and commodity resources ( and China) to outlast the West's ability to isolate him. So far it looks as this is his game plan.
From what I have read, most people think the West's united response has given the Chinese significant pause concerning Taiwan. But all it may have done is convince China that the West will not fight to defend Taiwan, and as long as China's economy and foreign reserves are isolated enough from western sanctions they can eventually go ahead. This may take another decade. Hopefully in that time the US can become "chip independent" and eliminate the need for 50% of our chips coming from Taiwan. But this doe little to alleviate our dependence on Chinese sources for rare earths etc.
There is a large amount of insightful military analysis of the Russian debacle so far on the internet. Logistics are their weak spot and may prove to be their downfall.
I recommend reading Maj General Mike Ryan( Australian) @Warinthefuture or mickryan.com.au
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/
It gets into the weeds about the track gauges of the European vs Russian railroads.

"Russia is one of the players in the OPEC cartel"
Yes- that's one of the reasons that the Saudis have been reluctant to help out on the situation. The other main factor seems to be that the US has a rather poor relationship with Saudi Arabia at the present time, for a multitude of legitimate reasons.
Also, overshadowed by the war news, is the fact that Iran has broken off the talks with the US over the nuclear sanctions situation. Iran is essentially allied with Russia, at least with respect to relations with the US, and while they could theoretically supply significant extra oil to the Western nations evidently have chosen not to.
So we have the rather ludicrous situation that Iran and Saudi Arabia, enemies, are, if not allied, at least both reluctant to help out against Russia.
Also in the background noise are tentative considerations regarding Venezuela, who all of a sudden may not be such a pariah after all. At least for now.
What a world.

I'm not sure how or if THIS LINK will work for non-subscribers to the SF Chronicle, but the news article content is fascinating to me, and I'd like to share it if possible.
Some excerpts:

The automobile could become an unlikely crucial new backstop for keeping the lights on in an era of more frequent wildfires, hotter heat waves and aging power infrastructure in California.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and General Motors announced Tuesday that the companies are in the early stages of developing a system for people to electrify their homes using vehicle batteries — it’s the latest corporate collaboration exploring this new use for the largest battery most people own. And it could minimize power disruptions from rolling blackouts or emergency shutoffs during dangerous weather.
Last year, Ford Motor Co. and San Francisco-based solar installer Sunrun announced the debut of an all-electric pickup capable of electrifying a house. Scheduled to be available later this year, the Ford F-150 Lightning is advertised as being able to provide power to a home for up to three days on a fully charged battery, or longer if power is rationed.
The idea for using electric vehicles as emergency power sources first came about in Japan during the nuclear disaster of 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami caused a meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. With communities turned to rubble, gasoline became scarce, but electric cars were crucial for moving emergency responders, refugees and supplies.
Japaneses automakers soon after began manufacturing electric vehicles with two-way charging systems capable of stepping in during emergency power outages,but that technology hasn’t yet reached United States consumers.
Most electric vehicles already have the capacity to be sources of power, said Rick Spina, General Motors’ vice president of electric vehicle infrastructure. What’s needed is further development of battery software and hardware to bring that power into the home.
The system the company is developing will include safeguards so people can control the outflow and ensure the battery retains enough of a charge so they can drive a certain amount of miles. That could be essential during an emergency, Spina said.
Vehicle batteries could become a linchpin for solar power during emergencies, said James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis.

A headline stating the obvious: "Nuclear reactors ‘not meant to be exposed to missiles’, analyst says"
That was a live feed from Al Jazeera a few hours ago which has since vanished.

See some talk about Bitcoin and rubles here
Some running to Bitcoin to hide assets, escape the collapse in the ruble, some to make it easier to cross borders as a refugee
Do remember my post from 2 years ago regarding high grade rubies. Don't be surprised if market for high grade gem stones takes off. Inflation is weakening all currencies in real terms, real threat of Cyber warfare crippling financial network
What happens if Russia escalates, demands removal of NATO weapons back to old borders etc with threats of nuclear war?
Many more refugees?
Like I said then you could shove a million bucks of gem stones into your sock and no one would know
Crazy
Baseball Fan

Looks like a “risk off” day shaping up Friday. Flight to bonds and, to a lesser extent, commodities. Japan’s down sharply overnight. U.S. futures down only moderately just prior to midnight.
Oh yeah. Agree with the others - war and nuclear plants don’t mix very well.

It is frightening news. I read "Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster" a couple of years ago. A much worse disaster could be set off by a single missile strike.

ADD: 9:30 pm EST
Nuclear experts: Disaster depends on where the fire is taking place
As a fire reported by Ukrainian officials continues at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, nuclear experts answered some of the most urgent questions:
Are there systems in the plant that can automatically fight the fire? Yes, but they don't fight all fires, said nuclear policy expert and Harvard professor Graham Allison. And not all fires at a power plant can have "catastrophic consequences." It depends on where the fire is — the biggest concern is if the blaze reaches a reactor's cooling pits, which could cause a meltdown of the reactor.
What could happen if a reactor melts down? If a fire, missile strike or other type of attack disrupts the nuclear reactor's cooling structure, it won't be able to cool itself — causing the fuel inside to overheat and melt down, releasing large amounts of radioactivity, said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The most recent and severe examples include the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Soviet Ukraine.
How likely is this? It's hard to say because there's still much we don't know, several experts agreed — most importantly, where the fire is located, whether it's even near the reactors or in a different part of the nuclear power complex, whether all the reactors are working — all things that could influence the severity of a disaster, if one occurs.
Why is the power plant coming under attack? Russian troops appear to be trying to seal off a nearby river and encircle Ukrainian forces, a classic maneuver, said retired US Army Gen. Wesley Clark — and the power plant is "right in the way." The plant is also a "key strategic asset," providing much of Ukraine's power, he added: "Take that offline, the grid is at least temporarily destabilized. You're cutting the ability of Ukrainians to be able to handle communications to a lot of other things."

I believe this is the plant that is the largest in Europe.
Other Investing, indeed. If the fire is not controlled or damage causing operational problems.
--- Firefighters unable to reach fire at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant
From CNN's Jonny Hallam
Firefighters are unable to reach the fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, according to the mayor of the nearby town of Energodar, Dmytro Orlov, in a Facebook post.
“The Zaporizhzhia Power Plant is notifying of a threat at the first block of the power plant! The fire at the plant is continuing. The firefighters cannot reach the location of the fire,” he posted.
Earlier, the mayor posted to Facebook saying: "Intense fighting is ongoing on approach routes to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Our National Guard fighters are defending. There are victims, but the exact number and condition so far cannot be determined under the circumstances."

Germany is most at risk, as they have closed about 50% of their nuclear plants recently and know import well over 50% of their energy from Russia

France has relied on nuclear for a long time, with 70% of its electricity produced by its own reactors. France also exports its nuclear technology and reactors. Macron recently announced an expansion of reliance on nuclear a pledge that turn out to be prescient given the energy prices in Europe today.

Most of the talking financial heads on CNN and PBS say it will take weeks to months for the Russian economy to collapse, esp if Europe has to continue buying millions of nat gas and oil
Having shut down their nuclear plants ( what were they thinking???) they are very dependent on Russia

“Cyberattacks are more likely than a nuclear response by Russia.”
Gosh. I feel a lot better now!
Fido sent me something late yesterday re the Ukrainian issue. Being derelict I failed to read it - and now can’t even find it. The brokers and fund houses don’t want a run on the bank. Not that I was so planning.

@graust
Thank you for the suggestions. I had forgotten about GAAEX, although I have looked at it in the past.
Will look at them and report back.
I think you can break down the ideas into a lot of categories and find ideas and ETFs for most of them. This is not the ideal, as most ETFs are index funds and the solutions are likely to come form ideas little known now
the things I am looking at are Alternative energy, Industrial electrification, energy storage, nuclear power, Basic materials that are necessary ( ie copper, Lithium, nickel uranium, and industrial processes like carbon capture, Water infrastructure, recycling and process innovation.
A lot of the ETFs load up on the latter with MSFT, GOOGL, and of course TSLA

Barron's had a short article on Climate change funds, maybe in honor of the Glasgow conference.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/climate-policies-fund-choices-51636068332?mod=past_editions
I have been putting small amounts into solar, wind and alternative energy ETFs mostly but a lot of them seem based only on indexes, and I think active management has a far better chance of success.
The other push for "ESG" funds seems to be too broad to allow a focus only on the transition to a low carbon environment.
This will concentrate on alternative energy, grid development, energy storage, nuclear power, materials like lithium, uranium, carbon capture, water infrastructure etc, not good governance, inclusiveness, or other desirable social goals that have little to do with low carbon.
There seem to be only a few actively managed Climate Change Funds available, like GMOs' GCCHX but it has minimums far out of the reach of mere mortals. A number of hedge funds are getting involved, and have lots of information, but again unless you have $1,000,000 or more you are on your own.
Has anyone done any significant research here?

I'm not sure about 1968 - 1981, but between 1973 and 1980, while the stock market roughly doubled utilities, well, roughly doubled.
Over the indicated periods, $100 grew to:
Utilities: 1973-1989 $711 (7x), 1981-1990 $352 (3.5x) => 1973-1980 2x
Stocks: 1973-1989 $613 (6x), 1981-1990 $303 (3x) => 1973-1980 2x
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-20-fi-1567-story.html
Okay, the calculation isn't perfect. I'm using the time frame from 1973-1989 and factoring out data from 1981-1990, while what should be factored out is 1981-1989.
(Utilities did a tad better than the S&P500 in 1990, losing only 0.63% to the 500's 3.18% loss.)
https://www.bespokepremium.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/totalreturns.png
Despite rising interest rates, despite inflation (which hit the energy sector - the raw material for utilities - harder than the economy as a whole), utilities didn't come off too badly.
(3 mo T-bill returns jumped from 4.07% in 1972 to 7.03% in 1973, generally remaining above 5% and moving into double digits at the end of the 70s. Inflation first broke 6% in 1973, roughly doubling the 1972 figure, roughly doubling again in 1974 to 11%, generally remaining about 6%, returning to double digits at the end of the 70s.)
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
A broader point is that aside from an expectation of rising inflation and interest rates, the utilities sector is substantially different from it was in the 70s. Then it was heavily regulated. Because of that regulation, investors expected a nearly guaranteed rate of return and little appreciation. Though because of rapidly rising costs (energy prices), the industry often failed to achieve those "guaranteed" returns in the 70s.
Still, I'm not expecting another reduction in oil production (with commensurate price hikes) due to an Arab oil embargo after a war with Israel (1973) or due to a revolution in Iran (1979).
Since deregulation took off in the 80s, since power generation was separated from transmission, it's a completely different business environment. In the 70s, nuclear power was all the rage, and the industry benefited from the government covering plants in case of, um, mishaps.
Today, nuclear is declining, and other utilities have to bear the cost of their negligence. Such as PG&E:

In a news conference, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett announced the 31 charges, including 11 felonies, against the company. She said in July that her office had determined that PG&E was “criminally liable” for last year’s Zogg Fire, which burned near Redding.
...
The filing also includes felony arson charges against PG&E for "recklessly igniting" three other fires, all occurring in Shasta County in the last year and a half before and after the Zogg Fire.
PG&E equipment has been found responsible for some of the most destructive wildfires in California history, including the 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County that left more than 80 people dead. More recently, PG&E reported to California utility regulators that its equipment may have been involved in the start of the Dixie Fire burning in Northern California.

https://www.kcra.com/article/criminal-charges-pgande-zogg-fire/37724695
Such as the electric utility companies operating in Texas:
https://abc13.com/texas-griddy-electric-company-lawsuit/10987967/

Part of the responsibility for the near-collapse of the state’s electrical grid can be traced to the decision in 1999 to embark on the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation, handing control of the state’s entire electricity delivery system to a market-based patchwork of private generators, transmission companies and energy retailers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us/texas-electricity-ercot-blackouts.html
The utility industry over the past third of a century or so is simply not the same as the regulated, widows and orphans industry it was prior to the 80s.