A year after the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed into law it’s a good reminder that there’s opportunity in infrastructure investments in the U.S., particularly green technology or those that profit from the transition from fossil fuels to renewable-energy sources.
“This is a really good time to be investing in the sector,” says Michael McGown, head of North American infrastructure private markets at Mercer Alternatives. “There is a real need to transition away from carbon, and the fact that the U.S. government has gotten behind this makes it a win.”
Yes, there is some political pushback against the law—and there are still those who want to rely on fossil fuels and other traditional forms of energy production. But many experts point to the IRA’s transformative potential, and its impact on energy-transition spending in particular, as a good opportunity for savvy investors.
“I don’t think in my career I’ve ever seen a law have a greater impact on economic development in this country,” Gregory Wetstone, chief executive officer of the American Council on Renewable Energy, a clean energy lobbying group, said in July.
Wall Street agrees. Calling themselves “positive” on greentech opportunities, analysts at UBS wrote in July that they forecast US$40 trillion to US$50 trillion of global energy-transition investments in the years 2021–30, in support of net-zero efforts.
“We also expect to see technological developments and a broad-based move to global electrified vehicles (i.e., battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles),” the UBS team wrote in a note. “Such sales may account for a 30% share of the global market by 2025 and a 60%–70% share by 2030, in our view.”
Within the category of energy transition, there are some infrastructure themes that may appeal more than others, either because of their promise of innovation or potential monetary returns.
Mercer’s McGowan points to investments in carbon reduction and abatement, those dedicated to decommissioning old power plants to replace them with renewable or hybrid technologies, and investing in ammonia, which is often used to transport clean hydrogen.
More cutting-edge technologies are likely to offer investors better total returns, says Steven Novakovic, director of curriculum for the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association. In contrast, the more mature, stable, user-fee oriented investments are less return-oriented, but better bets for income investors.
“Generating, moving, or storing energy tends to be income-oriented,” Novakovic says.
Importantly, even though energy infrastructure may be capital-intensive, higher and rising interest rates aren’t likely to be a negative for the sector.
“High barriers to entry and the monopolistic positioning of many infrastructure assets tend to make them less sensitive to the economic cycle,” the UBS analysts said. “In addition, they can help stabilise income generation in a multi-asset class portfolio, particularly when accounting for long-term inflation. Since 2003, infrastructure has typically performed best when global inflation has been high (based on Cambridge Associates Infrastructure Index data).”
With interest rates higher across the board, some investors may simply choose to stick with safer fixed-income assets, Novakovic says. But, he says, “Ultimately infrastructure still has a diversifying effect for portfolios.”
Where to Invest
What are the best ways for investors to access the sector? Qualified investors, or those with at least a few million to spend, can put money directly into private-market plays, such as private-equity funds or even venture-capital funds, which are likely to pay the most in total returns.
There are, of course, typical concerns with private-market strategies, the UBS team said: “illiquidity, longer lockup periods, leverage, concentration risks, and limited control and transparency of underlying holdings. While risks can’t be fully eliminated, it is possible to mitigate them through strong due diligence and strict manager selection.”
They add a shout-out for global industrial stocks, writing that the “sector’s composition has become increasingly diversified and no longer behaves like a traditional cyclical play, in our view.”
In a July note to clients, J.P. Morgan Private Bank analysts wrote about the opportunities in the semiconductor industry driven by the IRA in addition to last year’s CHIPS and Science Act. Semiconductors, for instance, can be used in the process of decarbonisation, particularly for powering “smart” electric grids and other forms of infrastructure
“The semiconductor industry is poised for growth as chips penetrate the clean energy value chain: in photovoltaic solar cells, wind turbines, EVs, batteries, charging stations, and power grids,” the note said.
CHIPS alone allocates more than US$50 billion to subsidise domestic manufacturing of advanced semiconductors. “These government incentives, combined with the wide variety of uses for semiconductors, have pushed companies to ramp up supply,” J.P. Morgan said.
For investors who want to access a basket of energy-transition stocks, several exchange-traded funds may fit the bill. The Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (ticker: LIT) “invests in the full lithium cycle, from mining and refining the metal, through battery production,” according to fund documents, while the Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF (SETM) says it, “provides pure-play access to a range of critical minerals necessary for the global clean-energy transition.”
And for those who prefer bonds, or just want a more tax-efficient strategy, many municipalities are also issuing debt to fund cleaner energy. In June, the California Community Choice Financing Authority sold nearly US$1 billion in bonds to finance the acquisition of clean energy—including geothermal and solar-plus-storage—by the Clean Power Alliance of Southern California. The projects could affect as many as 3 million residents.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
Limited to 630 units, Lamborghini’s latest Urus Capsule pushes personalisation further than ever, blending hybrid performance with over 70 bespoke design combinations.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
Advertising legend John Singleton unveils an exclusive 16-residence Caroline Bay development, marking his latest high-end property play on the Central Coast.
In the remote waters of Indonesia’s Anambas Islands, Bawah Reserve is redefining what it means to blend barefoot luxury with environmental stewardship.










