Climate change keeping snow, and investors, away from ski resorts as Olympics begin
Welcome to Callaway Climate Insights, your daily guide to global climate finance. Was this newsletter sent to you? Please enjoy and subscribe.
Today’s edition of Callaway Climate Insights is free for all our readers. We really want to bring you the best and latest in climate finance from around the world. Please subscribe now.
Despite an 11th-hour snowstorm in the Italian Alps this week, most of the Olympic skiers in Cortina and Bormio will be racing on artificial snow in coming days, as climate change buffets yet another Winter Olympics.
The Dolomites were supposed to grant the International Olympic Committee (IOC) some welcome relief after three straight Winter Olympic games in places not really known for snow, such as Beijing in 2022. But the climate-induced snow droughts hitting much of the skiing industry across the world this winter haven’t spared the Alps, and so planners made sure that plenty of machine-made snow was available to ensure the games go on.
Environmentalists decry artificial snow for the energy, and particularly water, that must be used for the snow guns to cover vast areas of mountain. But ski towns and resorts which have millions invested in attracting crowds to the lifts each season can’t afford not to do it.
Vail Resorts MTN 0.00%↑, for example, shares of which are down more than 20% since the last significant snows in Colorado in mid-December, has completely transformed its snow-making capabilities. But early season signs are that visitors and ski pass sales are down, as lack of real snow keeps skiers away.
In Italy the games will go on and this week’s snowstorm added just the right amount of extra snow to the trees and the base areas for the television cameras to convey that magical winter wonderland effect. But below the surface, Olympic organizers know the future of the winter games is changing for good.
Don’t forget to contact me directly if you have suggestions or ideas at dcallaway@callawayclimateinsights.com.
Follow us . . . .
Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram
How a BlackRock green fund went from launch to close in 29 months
. . . . Renewable energy funds come and go, but the story of BlackRock’s New Zealand NetZero Investment Fund is one for the books, writes Mark Hulbert. Two weeks ago, the world’s largest investment fund manager closed the fund only 29 months after launching it to great fanfare, aiming to be the primary investment vehicle in helping the country move to 100% renewable energy (from 80% currently). Many things changed, including a new government, but Hulbert writes that the primary reason the fund closed is that BlackRock BLK 0.00%↑ never got around to investing in anything with it. After more than a year there were still no investments, and then the company notified the government it would be dissolving the structure. So much for the world’s first entirely renewable energy country. Or BlackRock’s climate commitment.
Thursday’s subscriber insights
Stress testing your portfolio for climate, AI shocks
. . . . Last week’s gold and silver routs, as harsh as they were, provided a small benefit in that they reminded investors that what goes up might someday come down, and that once in a while it might be good to think about how investment portfolios would react to various asset shocks.
Norway’s $2 trillion wealth fund did just that, and the results were quite interesting from a green point of view. The fund had Norges Bank Investment Management run its equity and bond portfolios through tests for a climate shock, such as a breakdown in food supply, an AI shock, and debt and geopolitical fragmentation shocks, according to the Financial Times.
While a climate shock would hit its equity portfolio by 24%, a collapse in AI valuations would wipe out more than half its value, though its bond portfolio would benefit, according to the test. Far worse though, were regional debt and fragmentation concerns, which would hit both equities and bonds.
Stress tests are useful exercises though in reality, like with last week, it’s hard to accurately predict just what is going to set off a drop in financial markets. They also rarely take into account the chain reaction of potential global crises on the interconnectivity of international fund flows.
Still, the fact that AI valuations could be more risky than a climate shock, which would likely be more slow moving, is worth taking note of. We saw the potential for AI shocks just this week in software stocks, for example.
At least the stewards of Norway’s wealth have an idea now what their risks are. How that leads them to any changes in the portfolio will be fascinating to watch.
Editor’s picks: How life is changing in Greenland; plus, Ørsted sells onshore renewables
Watch the video: Greenland, the Arctic island coveted by Trump, experienced its warmest January on record this year, warming at a rate four times faster than the global average. Reuters reports on how a rapidly warming climate is changing life in Greenland.
Ørsted sells European onshore renewables to firm up finances
Danish wind farm company Ørsted plans to sell its European onshore renewables business to private equity group Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners for €1.44 billion euros ($1.7 billion) as part of a plan to bolster its finances. Reuters reports the deal is part of broader efforts by Ørsted to raise cash after a crackdown on U.S. offshore wind development projects by the Trump administration. Ørsted Chief Financial Officer Trond Westlie said in a statement: “The divestment of our European onshore platform finalizes the divestment program that we’ve laid out, and we’ve now substantially strengthened Ørsted’s financial position.” Ørsted reportedly plans to focus on its offshore wind project in Europe.
Latest findings: New research, studies and projects
Financing clean energy projects without federal dollars
Before last year, many federal programs had been providing or promising flexible capital to make clean energy projects less risky for lenders and investors. But many of those programs were discontinued in 2025. In a new report, the Rocky Mountain Institute says while the changes were a blow to projects and made financing harder, it has not reduced demand nor commitment for clean energy in communities. RMI convened 70 practitioners in late 2025 from green banks, community lenders, regional and commercial banks, and impact investors to surface the most pressing challenges and priorities for 2026. “The message was clear: Organizations are moving forward, even in tougher terrain. Participants remain motivated and are actively seeking solutions to ensure communities have access to resilient sources of capital for clean energy projects when federal dollars aren’t available.” Specifically, Whitney Mann reports for RMI, the event highlighted four major strategies to support community clean energy projects with investor and lender requirements without federal dollars. They are fixing the affordability gap, addressing the risk perception gap, closing the market access gap, and resolving ecosystem capacity constraints. Read the full report here.
Words to live by . . . .
“At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realize I am fighting for humanity.” — Chico Mendes, Brazilian trade union leader and environmentalist.
Strong piece connecting the dots between climate impacts and investor behavior. The Vail stock drop is telling - it shows markets are starting to price in operational risks beyond just regulatory ones. What's particuarly noteworthy is the irony: artificial snow requires massive energy and water, which only feeds the cycle, yet resorts have no choice economicaly. I've noticed similar patterns in coastal real estate where adaptation measures create their own feedback loops.