In almost non-headline news, there remain sceptics about global warming, climate change, environmental degradation or damage, however you may coin it. In the investment, and specifically structured products world, the regional markets are littered with sales people that have deposited many a glossy brochure in the hands of investors, only to be spurned.

Low returns have been an issue in the past, and there remain question marks over whether or not companies that are in the thick of the environmental revolution are worthy of investor dollars. Simply, two things are missing: firstly, companies that create technology to counter environmental harm, or at least present alternative ways of creating energy; and, secondly, a benchmark index – much like an MSCI emerging markets index, or an S&P 500, a Eurostoxx 50 or a Nikkei.

It will be a while before the first of these obstacles is overcome, but is a matter of time, and perhaps one big chunk longer before a preferred environmental index is established. The second will not arrive without the first.

Don’t be fooled by the difficulties that the first requirement entails. It is a problem that will continue to be so until the leading companies in the environmental sector cam file financial reports that establish a track record, but, more importantly it would appear, a sequence of profitability that not only calms but also assures investors that they are doing the right thing with their cash.

Without delving into the horror of another treatise about backtesting, this lies at the heart of the problem for sales people. Like it or not - and it appears that retail investors are mostly happy to like it – backtesting is one of the easiest ways of presenting a case that buyers want to hear. And why not: if you knew that success had repeated itself, the influence is there.

But perhaps there is another way to look at this, which certainly benefit the creators of green products. And that way is to look at and introduce future projections into the marketing and analysis of new products.

Does that mean that investors need to have probability explained to them? Well, yes! And, aside from the obvious complexity of trying to explain that most complicated of concepts to a retail investor, there is some support for this view. It’s been a while, but the US Financial Regulatory Authority has admitted, after explaining a profound dislike of backtesting (an attitude mirrored by the European Commission in its creation of Priips), that it would accept some form of probability analysis.

It’s like the answer is there, waiting to be matched to the question.