![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.enerjigazetesi.ist\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/yenilenebilir-enerji-tumuyle-iyi-bir-yatirim-midir.jpg\")
fuels. In the U.S., renewables yielded 200.3%<\/strong> returns versus 97.2%<\/strong> for fossil fuels<\/strong>.<\/p>\nGreen energy stocks were also less volatile across the board than fossil fuels, with such portfolios holding<\/strong> up well during the turmoil caused by the pandemic, while oil<\/strong> and gas\u00a0collapsed<\/strong>. Yet in the U.S., which provided the largest data set<\/strong>, the average market cap in the green energy portfolio<\/strong> analyzed came to less than a quarter of the average market cap for the fossil fuel<\/strong> portfolio\u2014$9.89 billion<\/strong> for the hydrocarbons versus $2.42 billion<\/strong> for renewables.<\/p>\n Speaking to\u00a0Forbes.com, Charles Donovan<\/strong>, director of the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial College<\/strong> and the report\u2019s lead author, said: \u201cThe conventional wisdom says that investing in fossil fuels<\/strong> is more profitable than investing in renewable power<\/strong>. The conventional wisdom is wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n In spite of the chaos seen in the fossil fuel markets<\/strong> in recent years and months, Donovan said that many investors were finding it hard to let go of hydrocarbons<\/strong>. \u201cMany investors are sleepwalking through a technological disruption of the energy industry, preferring to believe in a fairyland where upstream oil and gas projects<\/strong> earn big risk-adjusted returns,\u201d Donovan warned. \u201cThose days are gone.\u201d Donovan also warned that, despite the impressive returns from renewables, such figures had \u201cnot triggered anywhere near the level of investment required\u201d to decarbonize the economy and mitigate climate change<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This was a point addressed yesterday in a\u00a0separate report\u00a0<\/strong>from the IEA, which showed total global investment in energy down 20%<\/strong>\u2060\u2014almost $400 billion<\/strong>\u2060\u2014compared with last year, largely as a result of the coronavirus crisis. The IEA characterized<\/strong> the drop as \u201cstaggering in both its scale and swiftness, with serious potential implications for energy security<\/strong> and clean energy transitions<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n The IEA laid the blame<\/strong> for the collapse on lower demand for energy<\/strong>, lower prices<\/strong> and a rise in non-payment of bills<\/strong>\u2060, which were side effects of the pandemic<\/strong>.\u00a0 \u201cThe crisis has brought lower emissions but for all the wrong reasons,\u201d said Fatih Birol<\/strong>, IEA\u2019s executive director. \u201cIf we are to achieve a lasting reduction in global emissions<\/strong>, then we will need to see a rapid increase in clean energy investment<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n