Of course you should be suspicious.

However. He just turned 80 and realized there's only so much he can do before he dies and that seems to have focused his priorities. A couple of quotes from the article:

> Grantham turned 80 on Oct. 6. Asked how this milestone shifted his perspective, he pauses. “There’s no quick one-liner on aging,” he says. “We know this is an urgent topic, and I know I don’t have that long to do it.”

And Grantham would probably even agree with you that we should be suspicious of capitalist interests:

> Climate change, politics, and capitalism became frequent topics of Grantham’s quarterly letters. In his view, the U.S. has been pushed into the grip of an unhealthy version of capitalism, one in which corporations put profits way ahead of all other considerations. “The social contract of 1964, when I arrived here, has been totally torn up,” he says. “Anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn’t exist for them. Therefore, grandchildren have no value.”

But even more important, your comment hints at the conflict between profit and ecological health, and I think it's the role of government to realign things so that they aren't in conflict — set up regulation so that if you follow them, what you do is genuinely good. From the article:

> While capitalism “does a million things better than any other system,” he says, it fails completely on long-term threats such as climate change. “You must not expect unnecessary good behavior from capitalists,” he says. The answer, he adds, is strong regulations: “I’m sorry, libertarians, it is the only way.”

Do you have any specifics on what you doubt about this? Your comment came across as vague to me

Everybody had "predicted" 2000 and 2008 in the financial industry. That statement means nothing at this point.

"While giving away $1 billion, Grantham’s planning to make even more money, and he’s hoping climate change offers the opportunity. "

I think that you might be on to something...

I got the impression from the article that this was more about framing it to appeal to investors. "We'll use your money to support green tech, and you'll also make a profit."

Grantham seems pretty personally committed to environmental sustainability for its own sake.

Bad/neutral people can still do good things if they take action on things that reward good deeds (with money).

That's why non-profits hire people to help reach their goals.

It's in Grantham's interest to encourage regulation that minimizes carbon emissions (because of his investment company's "Climate Change Fund").

Is it good or bad to set yourself up to profit from that?

Many non-profits are tax write-offs and money-laundering schemes, which I didn't want to get into too deeply as it is off-topic; but it is definitely related and not surprisingly, Grantham is involved in that, too...