Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Well, the energy infrastructure in the
Speaker 1: Middle East is certainly getting a lot of attention. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of attacks over the last several months
Speaker 1: on oil fields, on tankers, just raising the question of
Speaker 1: the vulnerability of that infrastructure and very important source of
Speaker 1: energy in the world. To get a sense of what's
Speaker 1: going on, Welcome Seth Gray. Seth as a president CEO
Speaker 1: of light Bridge Corporation located in Reston, Virginia, joining us
Speaker 1: on the phone. So, Seth, again, we've had a series
Speaker 1: of attacks uh in the Middle East on some of
Speaker 1: the oil infrastructure. How vulnerable do you consider that part
Speaker 1: of the world to be in terms of oil infrastructure. Well,
Speaker 1: really it's vulnerable, which is very sad and very dangerous
Speaker 1: as we see from the drone attacks on the Saudi
Speaker 1: oil fields, as we see on the attacks on the
Speaker 1: Iranian oil tanker. One of the programs we have going
Speaker 1: under the Department of Energy here in this country is
Speaker 1: to improve our grid resiliency so that we have power
Speaker 1: plants that have can have fuel on site and if
Speaker 1: the supply is cut off, they can run for months
Speaker 1: or even years, the greatest of which are the nuclear
Speaker 1: power plants, which have several years of fuel on site.
Speaker 1: So we have supplies are cut off, they could run
Speaker 1: for years. And in particular, as the US is producing
Speaker 1: more oil domestically, the potential cutoffs and supply of oil
Speaker 1: really threatened our allies, including Japan and many others that
Speaker 1: are very dependent on Middle East oil. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's an issue for US and it's an issue for
Speaker 1: our allies. So Seth, considering the fact that your company
Speaker 1: is a nuclear fuel technology company, it's not surprising that
Speaker 1: you'd say, look, it's so important to build that grid.
Speaker 1: But I'm wondering how secure the nuclear grid would be
Speaker 1: or could be, given the fact that clearly energy infrastructure
Speaker 1: is a very very uh big target right now. Yeah, yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: the reactor sites themselves are are very robust, very protected sites.
Speaker 1: With many feet of concrete and steel protecting the facilities.
Speaker 1: And we are moving toward more local grids over time
Speaker 1: in this country too, with small reactors advanced technologies coming out,
Speaker 1: so that rather than just the giant, interconnected electric grids
Speaker 1: that could be attacked, there could be smaller grids which
Speaker 1: provide a level of protection onto themselves. We're also starting
Speaker 1: to electrify the transportation sector with electric cars, with electric buses.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of projections that will increase the
Speaker 1: use of electricity by fifty in the United States in
Speaker 1: the next couple of decades and similarly around the world,
Speaker 1: which puts even more pressure on the electric grid and
Speaker 1: not having the source of energy cut off. So what
Speaker 1: we're seeing there is an opportunity for American innovation, not
Speaker 1: just for domestic markets, but for exports for this advanced
Speaker 1: technology that will produce no carbon as we do move
Speaker 1: to electrify the transportation sector in addition to the traditional
Speaker 1: electricity sectors. SETH just give us a sense of kind
Speaker 1: of the state of nuclear energy in the United States.
Speaker 1: Are we adding plants, are we taking plants offline? What's
Speaker 1: kind of the trend here and how do you think
Speaker 1: that's going to play out well. We're pretty level at
Speaker 1: about one ent of our electricity from nuclear power, and
Speaker 1: we've closed some plants. We have two plants under construction
Speaker 1: in Georgia now, but mostly as the demand for electricity
Speaker 1: has been rising, we've been improving the efficiency of the
Speaker 1: existing plants to stay level at that. Now we're in
Speaker 1: danger of that falling down a bit and losing that
Speaker 1: zero carbon energy from the grid. So we have companies
Speaker 1: like light Bridge bringing new technologies that can better justify
Speaker 1: the economic case of keeping those plants open and building
Speaker 1: new plants. But part of the state domestically is where
Speaker 1: our nuclear companies are and the companies and the supply
Speaker 1: chain for exports, because the international market is bigger than
Speaker 1: the domestic market, and the greatest threats are from Russia
Speaker 1: and China, which together are taking about six of the
Speaker 1: global market and new reactors, and they are doing that
Speaker 1: partly for strategic reasons, for their national security reasons. Setting
Speaker 1: hundred our supply relationships with countries like Turkey where Russia
Speaker 1: is selling reactors too, and that does not necessarily lead
Speaker 1: to good things in Turkey and other places where they're
Speaker 1: selling reactors, So there are national security implications as well
Speaker 1: for Americans competing and winning against Russia and China overseas.
Speaker 1: How expensive or or cheap is what's the relative cost
Speaker 1: of nuclear energy versus say crude. Well, when when you
Speaker 1: levelize the cost of electricity, nuclear power is cheaper. It's
Speaker 1: it's quite a bit cheaper overall from these reactors that
Speaker 1: are already built and are operating. It's the new reactors
Speaker 1: that are being built. They're having problems with the cost
Speaker 1: overruns that are making those expensive. But as we design
Speaker 1: the new advanced reactors and build more of them, and
Speaker 1: we stop building a first of a kind plant, the
Speaker 1: new reactors will also produce cheaper electricity. How much is
Speaker 1: the lack of adoption of nuclear energy in the United
Speaker 1: States relative to some of its competitors competing nations. How
Speaker 1: much does this do just because there's a diversion to
Speaker 1: the word nuclear and the fear that if something happens
Speaker 1: that it could be catastrophic. Well, look, obviously that's part
Speaker 1: of it. In the United States, nuclear is the safest
Speaker 1: industry we have. Nobody has ever died from radiation in
Speaker 1: the history of the industry. Here, even at the only
Speaker 1: accident we ever had at three Mile Island, nobody died,
Speaker 1: nobody was hurt, and in fact, the twin plant on
Speaker 1: the same site kept operating for decades until just a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago when it was closed down. So we
Speaker 1: know how to build and operate these reactors very safely
Speaker 1: so that no one can can be hurt, and with
Speaker 1: the new advanced technologies that are coming, they'll be even
Speaker 1: safer with small underground plants uh where there will be
Speaker 1: no danger to the public. Seth countries are deploying nuclear
Speaker 1: most aggressively. Well right now we're seeing the United Arab
Speaker 1: Emirates about to start opening four nuclear power plants that
Speaker 1: they've been building littill supply about a quarter of their country.
Speaker 1: In terms of exports, Russia is the largest in the
Speaker 1: world right now, followed by China. The UK is making
Speaker 1: a big push to build new reactors, including one potentially
Speaker 1: from China, which shows how China is really impact then
Speaker 1: even our closest allies and UM generally, France has always
Speaker 1: been very strong and nuclear power, and they're they're deploying
Speaker 1: some in their own country as well as in neighboring
Speaker 1: European countries, and actually even two in China. So those
Speaker 1: are the major markets right now, and for US companies
Speaker 1: throughout the supply chains, lots of manufacturing companies, it's important
Speaker 1: that we keep pace and compete with them. Seth Great,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with as Seth Gray
Speaker 1: as president, chief executive officer of light Bridge Corporation, There's
Speaker 1: been a feeling that the bigger risk right now to
Speaker 1: markets at any time of central bank support and slowing
Speaker 1: but still positive growth is a trade deal that actually
Speaker 1: encourages people to rush into markets. Morgan Stanley today saying
Speaker 1: don't do it. It hasn't worked before, it won't work
Speaker 1: this time. Let's find out if Steve dou Dash agrees.
Speaker 1: He's president of i HT Wealth Management based in Chicago. Steve,
Speaker 1: do you agree that if there is some sort of
Speaker 1: trade deal that isn't necessarily a signal to just go
Speaker 1: dive back into risk your stocks? Does anyone? Has anyone
Speaker 1: seen the same cycle over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: or it last year or so. They come out and
Speaker 1: they say we got a trade deal or a partial deal,
Speaker 1: we're gonna work out something, and the markets go up
Speaker 1: upper cent or two, and then two weeks later they
Speaker 1: turned around and like, oh no, we're not gonna get
Speaker 1: a trade deal. No one wants to work this out,
Speaker 1: and then the cycle repeats itself over and over. So yes,
Speaker 1: I know they came out with some partial potential plan,
Speaker 1: and then today they didn't surprise anyone, come out and
Speaker 1: say no, maybe we don't have a plan. No one.
Speaker 1: I do not believe right now that we're going to
Speaker 1: see some magical, huge deal worked out overnight or at
Speaker 1: least in the short order, um that answers all those
Speaker 1: questions and gives the market true clarity anytime soon. It's
Speaker 1: too massive of a deal and there's too much political
Speaker 1: drama around it for it to happen in such a
Speaker 1: short period of time. Steve, to what extent, if any,
Speaker 1: do you think that this trade uncertainty is weighing on
Speaker 1: global economic growth? I think it's it's completely been weighing
Speaker 1: on it. If you if you strip out the tax
Speaker 1: break that took place a couple of years ago and
Speaker 1: the market snapping up because of that, you strip that out,
Speaker 1: we've been basically range bound for years now, Over and
Speaker 1: over again, we've not seen any substantial growth. Now that's
Speaker 1: a good thing too. To the extent that you know,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people are worried about inversion
Speaker 1: right now. I am not buying into that to the
Speaker 1: same extreme extreme, and they're worried about recession that could
Speaker 1: be meant from that, which again I do not believe
Speaker 1: in um. But if things do level off sideways, it's
Speaker 1: not like we have this euphoric high stock market price
Speaker 1: that's built on just you know, emotion. It's been flat
Speaker 1: for years with the exception of that trade tax deal,
Speaker 1: and therefore it's not like we have a huge downside
Speaker 1: risk um posed to it. So what are you buying
Speaker 1: I'm by I personally do believe that they'll eventually get
Speaker 1: some sort of trade deal done over the next few
Speaker 1: six months. Let's just say, because the politics involved, the
Speaker 1: Trump organization does need to win. This is the one
Speaker 1: area that they can control a great deal of it.
Speaker 1: I think the tech sector has been hit the hardest
Speaker 1: due to the trade deal, certainly the semi connector semiconductor
Speaker 1: set or if you want to go high risk, high return,
Speaker 1: I think that's an area where you can overload right
Speaker 1: now with the assumption that something works out, with the
Speaker 1: assumption that we are not sitting in the right before
Speaker 1: recession just because of the inversion that's going on, and
Speaker 1: question cutting into it, yes, and looking at Micron shares
Speaker 1: they're up this year, how do you how do you
Speaker 1: say that they've gotten hit pretty hard from the trade
Speaker 1: wars because, frankly, because they probably should be higher right now,
Speaker 1: and you're in the sample size, just the here to
Speaker 1: day doesn't show how you're looking in the year's past
Speaker 1: when it got hit a lot harder. I think there's
Speaker 1: so much uncertainty in the semiconductor sector right now because
Speaker 1: of the trade war and because of the unknown of
Speaker 1: how that's going to affect a political piece that is
Speaker 1: a part of the day of that deal right now
Speaker 1: that you're seeing restrictions on what the actual return should be.
Speaker 1: We are in the middle of the Internet of everything,
Speaker 1: right Everything is getting computerized. There's only going to be
Speaker 1: needing more and more chips to integrate everything that we
Speaker 1: do in the future. And so you remove that politically
Speaker 1: induced unknown to it, and you have a very strong
Speaker 1: sector in moving forward. So, Steve, how do you feel,
Speaker 1: I guess within the tech sector about the Fang stocks.
Speaker 1: They've been such a big, big driver really over the
Speaker 1: last decade, both on the upside and on the downside.
Speaker 1: I think about the fourth quarter of the fourth quarter
Speaker 1: of last year. Where are you on those names? I
Speaker 1: don't personally, I don't believe in Facebook. I think that
Speaker 1: the business model has been dying and that they're getting
Speaker 1: eaten up by their competition, including themselves in Instagram, and
Speaker 1: therefore generating less revenue UM per click because of it.
Speaker 1: Um the Amazons of the world. I've been on Amazon's
Speaker 1: bandwagon for a decade now. A decade ago people were
Speaker 1: talking about how was overpriced. Everyone uses it more and
Speaker 1: more and it's easier and easier to buy anything at
Speaker 1: any given time. So I know people like the lump
Speaker 1: thing in together as one big thing. It's just not
Speaker 1: Netflix is not the same as Facebook. Uh. Amazon is
Speaker 1: not the same as Google. It was a cute little
Speaker 1: term that people could use for a couple of years there,
Speaker 1: but I think you've got to be a little more
Speaker 1: selective on what you're buying. I believe Facebook is a
Speaker 1: dying business model right now. So am I going to
Speaker 1: look at that It's the same as Amazon, which I
Speaker 1: think is a high growth business model. No very interesting Facebook.
Speaker 1: Just looking at the stock up about this year, um.
Speaker 1: But you know a lot of those tech stocks to
Speaker 1: continue to perform well. Steve Doodash, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Steve as a president of I h T
Speaker 1: Wealth Management based in Chicago, giving us his thoughts on
Speaker 1: the market. He does not see a recession. Um, it
Speaker 1: does not. He's not worried about the when we had
Speaker 1: that inverted yield curve several weeks ago. Uh and UH
Speaker 1: I think probably believes on some light deal in the
Speaker 1: next six months. Might all that might be enough with
Speaker 1: a accommodator fed four equities. Well, space is a growth
Speaker 1: of business and it's no longer the sole purview of NASA.
Speaker 1: Investors can actually play it via the E t F market.
Speaker 1: To give us a sense of what's going on in
Speaker 1: the space investing race, we welcome Andrew Shannon, chief executive
Speaker 1: officer of procure a M, joins us here in our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. Andrew, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Real quickly, just tell us what procure a M is
Speaker 1: and how you kind of interact with the space business. So,
Speaker 1: procure a M is a registered investment advisor where we
Speaker 1: launched both our proprietary own ideas for e t s
Speaker 1: as well as help third parties launch their products, and
Speaker 1: UFO is the first product that we've brought to market
Speaker 1: listed on the New York Stock Exchange, launched in April
Speaker 1: of this year. So I'm looking right now at UFO,
Speaker 1: which is obviously a really catchy ticker. And there's obviously
Speaker 1: a lot of intrigue around space exploration in what exactly
Speaker 1: do you invest in? So I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people have wanted to invest in space for a long time,
Speaker 1: and until launching this fund and very recently, it's been
Speaker 1: a fairly difficult space to actually get exposure too. And
Speaker 1: so unless you're an institution making a private uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a private company type of purchase, that there weren't too
Speaker 1: many pure play space companies. But right now this market
Speaker 1: has really expanded and has brought new entrance into the market.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen is that satellite companies are a
Speaker 1: very big driver of this industry, as well as some
Speaker 1: of the traditional aerospace and defense companies, but those aren't
Speaker 1: typically as pure play. So when you're looking at our fund,
Speaker 1: what you're actually getting exposure to is satellite operators and manufacturers,
Speaker 1: launch equipment company, ground station company, as well as other
Speaker 1: companies that are completely reliant upon UM space based systems
Speaker 1: in order to get their services or products to market.
Speaker 1: Space and exploration has changed a lot in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: Remember being a little kid watching the moon landings. Um,
Speaker 1: now it seems like, you know, rockets going up left, right,
Speaker 1: and center, and I don't know who's sending them up there.
Speaker 1: So but give us a sense of how space has
Speaker 1: kind of changed. And it was the purview of kind
Speaker 1: of the US government, maybe the Russian government, NASA, but
Speaker 1: now there's mostly private right right. So in the early
Speaker 1: days you have the the EESA and ROSS, Cosmos and NASA,
Speaker 1: and those government agencies were really the driving force for
Speaker 1: the space economy. And this year, actually the just a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, the numbers came out for the
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen space industry and it's set a new
Speaker 1: record for itself. Roughly four hundred fourteen billion plus dollars
Speaker 1: um spent on space was and so going over four
Speaker 1: hundred billion for the first time ever. And then you
Speaker 1: look at Morgan Stanley that's been building up research groups
Speaker 1: as well as Bank of America. Morgan Stanley's predicting over
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars by twenty forty. Bank of America sees
Speaker 1: up to two point seven trillion dollar industry by so
Speaker 1: you're looking at a lot of UM analysts out there
Speaker 1: looking to see this this be a continuum trender of
Speaker 1: growth for the broader space industry. So I'm looking right
Speaker 1: now at the assets in UF It's a twelve million
Speaker 1: dollars and I'm wondering what you needed to get up
Speaker 1: to an order for this to be sort of a
Speaker 1: sustainable investment vehicle in itself. So break even for for
Speaker 1: products such as this is in the several tens of
Speaker 1: millions typically UM. But you know right now, we just
Speaker 1: launched this product in April, so to be at twelve million,
Speaker 1: we're pretty happy, given that the summer is typically a
Speaker 1: pretty dead season for growth. How much is the construction
Speaker 1: of an index guided by what investors are asking for
Speaker 1: versus what registered investment advisors are looking to be able
Speaker 1: to provide in terms of, you know, a pitch. That's
Speaker 1: a really good question because I think a lot of
Speaker 1: times you'll see a thematic fund and maybe the name
Speaker 1: is really catchy, and so someone says, oh, it invests
Speaker 1: in this you know, thematic area. I want to own it.
Speaker 1: But when you actually look at the index, and boil
Speaker 1: it down, you're actually getting the exposure that you actually
Speaker 1: wanted to when you invested in that product. So for me,
Speaker 1: looking at the index is one of the first most
Speaker 1: important aspects of building a truly representative thematic product. And
Speaker 1: for this, we actually have a partner who's a former
Speaker 1: director of the Space Foundation. UM has been studying space policy,
Speaker 1: space business, all these various areas as well as the technologies,
Speaker 1: and he actually built this index. So I think what
Speaker 1: he was able to do is get a pretty strong
Speaker 1: representation of what the global publicly traded space industry looks like.
Speaker 1: So you're not going to get every single company because
Speaker 1: some of them are private and some of them are
Speaker 1: maybe smaller or less liquid companies. But when you actually
Speaker 1: look at the breakdown as far as what's driving the
Speaker 1: space economy, a lot of these names are represented in
Speaker 1: the fund today. So the space business is growing, it's
Speaker 1: becoming more and more private. Are you expecting more publicly
Speaker 1: traded companies to come into the marketplace, UM, I would
Speaker 1: certainly like to see that. I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: one getting the most buzz recently on that front is
Speaker 1: Virgin Galactic, which did this, uh this spack kind of
Speaker 1: merger that can bring it out to market, hopefully within
Speaker 1: the next couple of weeks or months um which could
Speaker 1: be a new way for investors to get exposure to
Speaker 1: the space industry. Um. You know, I love to see
Speaker 1: a strong industry that you're constantly seeing acquisitions and I
Speaker 1: p o s and things like that, and you know,
Speaker 1: I hope we're getting closer to that stage. But right now,
Speaker 1: you know, thirty one companies from around the world is
Speaker 1: a pretty um my view, an interesting way to get
Speaker 1: exposure to this industry. Andrew Shannon, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being with us. Andrew Shannon, the CEO of Procure
Speaker 1: a M and I gotta say UFO brings me back
Speaker 1: to watching Doctor Who, growing up with the tartists and
Speaker 1: with you know, the different the seven different doctors. I
Speaker 1: could geek out. I'm pretty much anything but definitely science
Speaker 1: fiction and face exploration. If we appreciate you being with us.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of back and forth in the political
Speaker 1: sphere when it comes to global warming, climate change and
Speaker 1: some of the steps being taken, but the trend is
Speaker 1: clear when you take a look at business and joining
Speaker 1: us now to discuss that we are very pleased to
Speaker 1: say is Rich Lesser, who is the chief executive officer
Speaker 1: of Boston Consulting Group, which is based in New York.
Speaker 1: But Rich right now is in Munich, Germany. And before
Speaker 1: we talk about climate change, what are you doing in Munich.
Speaker 1: I'm in the middle of hell. It's nice to be
Speaker 1: here with you. I'm in the middle of an around
Speaker 1: the world trip, just visiting clients, doing some meetings around
Speaker 1: the world. So I was in Boston, then Abu Dhabi,
Speaker 1: now here, then off the Asia, then Seattle, then dot Home.
Speaker 1: Sounds pretty exciting. So I want to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about climate change and what your research has shown
Speaker 1: in terms of the shift that you've been seeing among
Speaker 1: the c suite offices. Sure so, um so so, First
Speaker 1: just the facts and then what we're observing in terms
Speaker 1: of the dialogue. The facts are really clear. The economic
Speaker 1: downside from not addressing climate change is enormous, and we're
Speaker 1: right now not on a one and a half degree path,
Speaker 1: or at two degree path, or on a much higher path,
Speaker 1: depending on who you talked to, three and a half
Speaker 1: or even four degrees. The economic consequences of that are enormous.
Speaker 1: What was fascinating to us starting with what we just
Speaker 1: happened to do in Germany coincidentally and have now expended
Speaker 1: around the world is when you model through the macroeconomic
Speaker 1: impacts of addressing climate change at a macroeconomic level, that actually,
Speaker 1: even if a country does it alone, of course it
Speaker 1: gets better if all of us do it together. The
Speaker 1: macroeconomic case is quite strong. So to take Germany in
Speaker 1: the US, for example, if you were to you could
Speaker 1: improve eight percent of carbon emissions, take down carbon emissions
Speaker 1: in Germany and in the seventies in the US with
Speaker 1: no net negative economic impact um. And that's true in
Speaker 1: many other countries around the world. The last twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty percent to get to net zero by that will
Speaker 1: require technological innovation or have some economic consequence. If we
Speaker 1: can't find that innovation, So then the question is, if
Speaker 1: that's so good, why don't companies just go do this.
Speaker 1: It's because while it may be true at a macro
Speaker 1: economic level that the net impact is slightly positive or
Speaker 1: neutral macro economically for individual sectors, it will clearly be
Speaker 1: very hard in many sectors of the economy. So we
Speaker 1: need governments to set good policy, to create the right incentives,
Speaker 1: ideality to create a market for carbon That will encourage
Speaker 1: companies to take the right action, because sector by sector
Speaker 1: it won't always make sense to do it on their own.
Speaker 1: So the suite executives now realize how much the public cares,
Speaker 1: and I think many companies are getting their arms around
Speaker 1: being much more aggressive on this. So Rich, how difficult
Speaker 1: is it for you and for your clients to push
Speaker 1: through meaningful sustainability issues when President Trump and the U.
Speaker 1: S administration does not appear to be supporting that at all.
Speaker 1: I think most companies are realizing the there's more opportunity
Speaker 1: to make progress than they realize, and more of a
Speaker 1: sense of urgency from many of the customers than might
Speaker 1: have been in place a couple of years ago, and
Speaker 1: that will lead to real progress. I think we're also
Speaker 1: seeing more integration across the public, private, and social sector
Speaker 1: than we had before. But let's be clear and certain
Speaker 1: sectors of the economy. Absent effective government action, it will
Speaker 1: not go as far as it needs to go. And
Speaker 1: so the lack of the lack of engagement, support and
Speaker 1: acknowledgement of the magnitude of the issue from the US
Speaker 1: government and other governments. It's not the only one, but
Speaker 1: but certainly, the US, given the size of its economy,
Speaker 1: has a meaningful impact on how far we're going to get,
Speaker 1: even if companies are serious, and even if companies genuinely
Speaker 1: try to make progress. Can you give us an example
Speaker 1: of a concrete measure that an industry has been taking
Speaker 1: that actually costs them quite a bit of money that
Speaker 1: moves them towards being more sustainable. I think that's not
Speaker 1: where most companies are right now. I don't think most
Speaker 1: companies feel like they either have a defense from their
Speaker 1: investor base or from others to be able to do
Speaker 1: things that have purely negative economic consequences. I think the
Speaker 1: focus right now is that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: ways you can get better. We see the banks pushing
Speaker 1: much more investment towards sustainable and renewable industry plays. You
Speaker 1: see the auto industry pushing towards electric vehicles. You've see
Speaker 1: the industrial sectors focus on waste and water. But but
Speaker 1: part of the challenge we've got is it's very hard
Speaker 1: for one company to take the risk of very negative
Speaker 1: economic consequences when you've got activist investors and you've got
Speaker 1: how they'll be portrayed in the financial market. If there
Speaker 1: was a price on carbon or some other way to
Speaker 1: have everybody bear a cost. Then I think you could
Speaker 1: see much more aggressive action and would have negative consequences
Speaker 1: for one, but collectively will have marginal impact if it's
Speaker 1: if it's shared burden Without that kind of measure, though,
Speaker 1: are any of these companies taking real measures towards becoming
Speaker 1: more sustainable or is it more of a PR push.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's PR. I don't I so, And
Speaker 1: to be direct, I don't think it's PR. I think
Speaker 1: it's a genuine desire to make progress. But I think
Speaker 1: a genuine desire to make progress within the constraint of
Speaker 1: having real financial pressures on them. And I don't think
Speaker 1: we're yet at the stage because because the financial markets,
Speaker 1: as you know where then most you know, can be
Speaker 1: pretty unrelenting and and it's hard to do that. But
Speaker 1: but what I think companies are discovering, so that makes
Speaker 1: it sound like nothing's happening, I don't feel that way.
Speaker 1: I think what we see in many sectors as people
Speaker 1: looking in ways to find win wins, to find wins
Speaker 1: to to drive carbon out of their footprints, to encourage
Speaker 1: investments in their industry or in other industries to encourage
Speaker 1: their suppliers to be bolder in improving their operations because
Speaker 1: they're the customers for those suppliers. So it's genuine action,
Speaker 1: but it's not sufficient action. So rich do we need
Speaker 1: an international framework to really push this forward? So that
Speaker 1: was the interesting thing. We will be so much better
Speaker 1: off with an international framework. But look around the world
Speaker 1: right now, we're not finding international frameworks on many topics
Speaker 1: right now, trade, you know, many issues, so so we
Speaker 1: it's it's unfortunate because there would be so much easier
Speaker 1: for the world to move if we moved together. But
Speaker 1: what was interesting about our researches that countries can take
Speaker 1: big actions on their own that are do not bear
Speaker 1: the negative economic consequences that are sometimes portrayed to make
Speaker 1: major progress. Again, I don't want to overstate it's not
Speaker 1: to get net zero carbon by on their own, but
Speaker 1: to get seventy or eighty percent of the way they
Speaker 1: are is still a huge step that could be done
Speaker 1: without negative economic consequences at a country level, but it
Speaker 1: has to deal with the consequences set or bisector and
Speaker 1: steal and cement in the energy industries in other places
Speaker 1: in order to be able to make that viable for
Speaker 1: individual companies to drip the kind of actions that we
Speaker 1: need to have them take. Ye. This may be an
Speaker 1: issue of I think globally and act locally. Rich Lesser,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us. Rich as the chief
Speaker 1: executive officer of Boston Consulting Group, joining us on the
Speaker 1: phone from Munich, Germany, as he does, is around the
Speaker 1: world trip visiting clients, talking about climate change and how
Speaker 1: these companies should be dealing with it, a very compelling topic.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. And Lisa bram Woyds I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Lisa bram Woyds. One before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio