In the Land of Royal Weddings, it is Hotter than Ever

In central England, where Prince William and Catherine Middleton wed, people have directly measured temperature for longer than anywhere else in the world. Ever since 1659 scientists have continuously taken thermometer readings in this region of England. For most places on earth, weather data stretches back only a few decades, here we have three and a half centuries of directly measured climate data. And Climate Central has plotted the average yearly temperatures and also marked Royal Weddings over the centuries. The two warmest Royal Wedding years were 1999 and 2005.

David Kroodsma.Data journalist, Climate Central (29 April 2011):

At Climate Central, we are excited about the Royal Wedding not because it’s an opportunity to fawn over the wealthy and powerful, but because of history. And not just because of history like the fact Queen Victoria was the first to popularize white wedding dresses when she donned one for her marriage to King Albert in 1840.

We are excited because in central England, where Prince William and Kate Middleton wed today, people have directly measured temperature for longer than anywhere else in the world. Ever since 1659 — more than a century before the U.S. Revolutionary war — scientists have continuously taken thermometer readings in this region of England. This data set has been compiled by the Met Office of the Hadley Center, and it represents the average temperature across a triangular area of the U.K. between Bristol, Lancashire, and London.

For most places on earth, weather data stretches back only a few decades. In central England, we have three and a half centuries of directly measured climate data.

Below we’ve plotted the average yearly temperature in Central England, and also marked Royal Weddings over the centuries. Click on a wedding to see what that year’s climate was like in Central England. Please note, we are not implying any relationship between Royal Weddings and climate change! In fact, you’ll see that the weddings are quite out of sync with the warming trend.

The first thing you will notice, besides the fact that Queen Victoria’s white wedding gown made its debut on a colder-than-usual year in 1840, or that King George V wedded Queen Mary during a warmer-than-average year in 1893, is that five of the ten warmest years have occurred in the past decade, with the warmest year in England’s history being 2006. The two warmest Royal Wedding years were 1999 (Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones) and 2005 (Prince Charles and Camila Parker Bowles).

The warming trend over the past few centuries is not that extreme — about half a degree per century, on average, with faster warming in the past fifty years. However, the fact that the past decade has been warmer than any on record has played out not just in Central England, but also on thermometers all over the world.

The projections for England, based on the average of climate models as reported by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is for the average yearly temperatures in England to rise by an additional three to five degrees Fahrenheit this century.

What this means for Royal Weddings and proper Royal Wedding attire, only time will tell.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com

Sustainable Development Comes to the Aid of the Party

The People’s Action Party was returned to Government in Singapore with a comprehensive majority, and will continue its on-going commitment to manage the environment, energy, water and waste. On 24/25 May, the first National Energy Efficiency Conference takes place. But in one of the most keenly contested elections ever, the opposition Workers Party succeeded in getting six of its number elected as MPs and also put forward, for the first time, a sustainable development manifesto for the nation.

Sustain Ability Showcase Asia is an acknowledged supporter of the first National Energy Efficiency Conference in Singapore. One of the visiting speakers is David Solsky, CEO of Carbon Systems. For more information on the Conference, go to: http://www.neec2011.sg/

This summary of the Workers Party policy paper first appeared on the Olive Ventures website (29 April 2011):

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The scarcity of land and resources in Singapore makes sustainability a top priority. While economic development is important, it should not overshadow the importance of environmental sustainability. A sustainable environment is essential to economic growth. Singapore’s economic development has taken a toll on our natural resources and created pollutants in our environment in the process. We are rapidly losing our natural heritage as a result of urbanization and rapid development. While we are mindful of the scarcity of land in Singapore for housing and economic development, we must balance the needs of urban development and preserving nature. Ecological awareness to protect and preserve our biodiversity is low in Singapore. Recycling is not yet a way of life in Singapore. Increasing recycling rates is key in extending the lifespan of our landfills.

Noise pollution is often a problem in Singapore. We should be mindful to ensure a ‘civic and gracious’ social environment. Climate change is a reality, and extreme changes in the weather can be expected in future. We should be ready to react to sudden changes in the environment. Most of Singapore’s food today is imported. There is little certainty that food supplies can be sustained through prolonged periods of emergency.

Our Beliefs

1. We should encourage research and implementation of the use of sustainable energy and related products.

2. Commercial users should be incentivised to conserve energy and water.

3. Corporations should be encouraged to exercise corporate social responsibility to protect the environment.

4. A rich ecosystem is necessary for a quality environment, and it is the responsibility of the government and our people to protect our natural heritage.

5. The government must educate and encourage greater awareness of indigenous flora and fauna, as well as marine life.

6. Natural habitats like the marshland habitats, mangrove swamps and coral reefs, marine animals and wild birds must be protected for our future generations.

7. A clean and healthy environment is also essential to ensure the physical wellbeing of our people. We need to do more to motivate every individual to take up environmental ownership and to care for the environment as a way of life.

8. The culture of recycling should be imbued from young.

9. There should be a more holistic approach to deal with noise pollution.

10. We have to explore ways to increase our self-sufficiency in food supplies.

11. We need to be prepared for extreme weather changes. Contingency plans should be drawn up according to various possible scenarios.

12. We require sustainable energy to ensure water sustainability for the country via technologies like NEWater. Energy costs should also be reined in; otherwise water costs will increase in tandem.

13. Budget should be provided for research into solar power usage for water reclamation plants. A possible investment in offshore water catchments and processing plants should be studied.

Our Proposals

1. Natural habitats with ecological and educational value should be gazetted as permanent natural reserves.

2. We need to strive for more regional cooperation to contain environmental hazards such as forest fires or chemical leaks so as not to affect air quality.

3. Plans for projects likely to adversely affect the natural environment should be accompanied by Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) and mitigation plans before they are approved. This is especially important in the case of the feasibility study on nuclear power use in Singapore. Radiation monitoring capabilities should also be strengthened in view of this.

4. More programmes should be implemented to encourage local farming. We should explore vertical farming or high-rise farming technology to offset the problem of limited land for food production. We should also further diversify our food sources to enhance our food security.

5. As an equatorial country, we should explore alternative ways such as fuel cell and solar energy to mitigate the worldwide shortage of natural gases and fossil fuel. This has potential to create maintenance and engineering jobs and reduce expenditure on raw energy resources. We could also export our knowledge and products based on fuel cell and solar technology.

6. Green vehicle adoption should be encouraged via price incentives and improved refuelling infrastructure support.

7. We can provide tax relief and incentives for companies to encourage innovative ways to recycle waste and increase energy conservation.

8. “Social noise pollution” such as karaoke sessions at home, dog barks and children playing at common areas disturbs the comfort of others. We should cultivate civic awareness to prevent such noise pollution in a high-density living environment.

9. A comprehensive approach including a legal framework and a centralised agency to regulate noise pollution should be set up.

10. Noise meters should be installed around potential noise pollution ‘hot-spots’, including MRT/LRT rails and roads to ensure noise levels remain within the legal limits.

11. A dispute resolution mechanism should be set up at the Community Development Council level for greater accessibility.

12. A Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) should be performed to understand the risk posed to Singapore by climate change. Adaptation policies should be communicated to citizens. As part of this, a task force needs to perform scenario planning for adverse and extreme weather changes. Contingency plans should be drawn up in response to these scenarios.

Source: www.oliveventures.com.sg

Repair the Ozone Hole with Climate Friendly Refrigerants

Refrigerants, Naturally! brings together four high-profile private companies – The Coca-Cola Company, McDonald’s, Unilever, and PepsiCo – and two international environmental organizations – Greenpeace and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – to combat climate change and ozone layer depletion by developing natural refrigeration technologies that are safe, reliable, affordable, and energy efficient. Meanwhile, a Chilling Facts report shows that 239 stores in the UK are now using climate-friendly refrigeration, up from just 14 two years ago.

We saw it on a BBC documentary. We hear that so called safe gases to help reduce the hole in the ozone are in fact more damaging than CO2 for the atmosphere. We came up with two recent articles on this. One from the UK and one from the UK, including information of what some companies are doing to avoid the dangers to the atmosphere of refrigerant gases.

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) UK (29 March 2011)

ASDA OUT IN THE COLD OVER GLOBAL WARMING

SUPERMARKETS in the UK are making significant strides to counter their impact on global warming – but the nation’s second biggest chain, Asda, has been sternly criticised for apparently turning its back on green commitments.

The new survey Chilling Facts III has found that 239 stores in the UK are now using climate-friendly refrigeration, up from just 14 two years ago.

However, Asda declined to participate in this year’s study and slumped to the bottom end of the league table, casting grave doubts over the sincerity of its 2007 public pledge to move away from using HFCs (hydroflurocarbons), which have a global warming impact many thousands of times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2).

The survey by the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) quizzed supermarkets on the global warming impacts of their refrigeration for warehouses, transportation and stores. For the first time this year, it also included air conditioning systems as an issue, many of which use HFCs despite viable alternatives.

The alarming results of the first survey, published in 2009, showed that as much as one-third of a supermarket’s carbon footprint came from refrigeration gases.

In the aftermath, several supermarket chains started to tackle the issue. The number of stores running on climate-friendly refrigeration increased from 14 in the first year to 46 last year, and to 239 in this year’s survey.

Furthermore, the judges are delighted to see that some retailers have pledged to drop HFCs altogether in a specific time-frame. And the leaders – Waitrose, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer – have said all new equipment will be HFC-free, showing the transition is both technically feasible and commercially viable.

There were also significant reductions in leakage of cooling gases, an important aspect of reducing the climate change impact of refrigeration. And companies were doing a lot more to monitor and maintain equipment, as well as to train engineers.

Ranking the supermarkets by performance revealed Waitrose is still at the top of the table, with Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer close behind; Morrisons, Co-operative Group and Lidl are mid-field, while laggards Iceland, Asda and Aldi trail at the bottom.

Asda’s poor showing is worrying, considering the scale of its operation in the UK and the fact that its US parent Walmart is trumpeting its sustainability policies.

“We are very unhappy that Asda has not kept up with its original commitments to stop using HFCs, and disappointed that it refused to participate in the survey this year,” said EIA senior campaigner Fionnuala Walravens.

“It’s not unreasonable to ponder whether this was perhaps to hide the fact it has made little progress on this issue and deems it a low priority.

“As one of the UK’s biggest retailers, it is unacceptable for Asda to ignore such an important issue. It should be lambasted for what appears to be a major and unjustifiable U-turn on its previous climate commitments.”

Air conditioning in stores has also received little attention to date, with a heavy reliance on both HFCs and even HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons); HCFCs have a high global warming impact, damage the ozone layer and will be banned from December 2014.

EIA’s Chilling Facts campaign is being supported by Julia Hailes, sustainability consultant and author of nine books, including The New Green Consumer Guide.

“I’m so pleased to be working with the Environmental Investigation Agency on the Chilling Facts campaign,” she said. “Reducing the climate change impact of supermarket refrigeration is a really significant achievement.

“We’re delighted with the progress to date but recognise that there’s still a lot more to be done.”

Chilling Facts III research shows UK retailers to be ahead of their European counterparts in phasing out HFCs, putting them in a strong position to meet any challenging targets set by legislation.

URGENT CALL TO ACTION – FROM EIA

EIA calls on all supermarkets to:

1. Commit to fully phasing out HFCs by 2015;

2. Use HFC-free refrigeration in all new builds and refits;

3. Phase out HFCs in all air-conditioning systems, transport and distribution centres.

EIA calls on the UK government to:

1. Support an ambitious HFC phase-out as part of Europe’s F-gas regulation review;

2. Introduce a tax on HFCs;

3. Provide incentives for training refrigeration engineers to work with HFC-free technologies.

To read or download a copy of the Chilling Facts III report in pdf format, visit http://www.chillingfacts.org.uk/

NOTES

1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is a UK-based Non Governmental

Organisation and charitable trust (registered charity number 1040615) that investigates and campaigns against a wide range of environmental crimes, including illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging, hazardous waste, and trade in climate and ozone-altering chemicals.

2. The Chilling Facts Campaign has been set up by EIA to highlight the global

warming impacts of refrigeration and air-conditioning gases, and to promote

climate-friendly alternatives.

Source: www.eia-international.org and www.greencooling.org

Press Release, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School (24 March, 2011):

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: Environment and Natural Resources

CAMBRIDGE, MA— The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University announced today that the 2011 Roy Family Award for Environmental Partnership will be given to Refrigerants, Naturally!, an alliance of corporations substituting environmentally-harmful fluorinated gases (“F-gases”, such as CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs) with natural refrigerants in their commercial refrigeration installations. Natural refrigerants are climate and ozone friendly gases that exist naturally in the biosphere, i.e. ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons.

The award is presented every two years to celebrate an outstanding public-private partnership project that enhances environmental quality through the use of novel and creative approaches.  It will be presented to the recipients at a Harvard Kennedy School event later this spring.

Refrigerants, Naturally! brings together four high-profile private companies – The Coca-Cola Company, McDonald’s, Unilever, and PepsiCo – and two international environmental organizations – Greenpeace and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – to combat climate change and ozone layer depletion by developing natural refrigeration technologies that are safe, reliable, affordable, and energy efficient.

In the 1990s, Greenpeace began a campaign to raise public awareness of the environmental impact of F-gas refrigerants and worked to lobby business to adopt HFC-free refrigeration solutions. Corporations, in turn, sought alternative refrigerants, but found that as manufacturers were not offering HFC-free options companies could not switch to natural refrigerants even if they wanted to do so. In 2004, Refrigerants, Naturally! was launched by McDonald’s , The Coca-Cola Company and Unilever to encourage manufacturers to make products using natural refrigerants and to share technological information. PepsiCo joined the initiative in 2006.  Since 2004, Refrigerants, Naturally has focused its efforts on overcoming barriers to the use of natural refrigerants including worldwide availability, maintenance, cost and regulation. Greenpeace and UNEP have been supporters of this partnership from the beginning, by providing advice, information and linkages to their own activities.

In addition to sharing technical information and best practices, the corporate members have each worked within their businesses to accelerate the deployment of natural refrigerant technologies. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions have been prevented from entering the atmosphere as a result.

Further evidence of the group’s leadership is demonstrated by the focus on outreach to other influential groups and in 2010 the first ever sustainable refrigeration summit of the Consumer Goods Forum, a CEO-led organization of 600 global consumer goods manufacturers and retailers, led to a pledge to begin phasing out HFC refrigerants as of 2015 and replace them with natural refrigerants.

“Strong U.S. legislation on climate may not be passed by this Congress, but Refrigerants, Naturally! demonstrates that meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are possible if business and NGOs are creative and are prepared to work together,” said Henry Lee, director of the Environment and Natural Resources program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in announcing the 2011 award winner.

The partnership was selected from a group of highly qualified projects nominated from around the world that tackled tough environmental problems ranging from sustainable mining to responsible land stewardship. Experts from inside and outside of Harvard reviewed the nominees with the following criteria: innovation, effectiveness, significance and transferability.

Roy Family Award reviewers praised the impact of Refrigerants, Naturally! on an important and often overlooked problem – persistent F-gases in the Earth’s atmosphere – and held it up as a pragmatic example of corporations, a United Nations organization and a non-governmental environmental organization working together to reduce severe threats to the global environment.

Refrigerants, Naturally! has succeeded in creating a viable market for natural refrigerants for point-of-sale applications and has promoted F-gas-free technologies that are cost-efficient, energy saving and climate friendly.

The Roy Family has been a long-time supporter of the development of public-private partnerships to meet social goals. The Roy Family Award attempts to provide positive incentives for companies and organizations worldwide to push the boundaries of creativity and take risks that result in significant changes that benefit the environment.

Members and supporters of Refrigerants, Naturally!:

Corporate Members:

Unilever

The Coca-Cola Company

PepsiCo

McDonald’s

Supporters:

Greenpeace

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)

About the impact of f-gases and their use in refrigeration:

This edition of the Roy Family Award comes at a crucial time for climate protection. A recent UNEP report released at the Cancun climate negotiations highlighted that even if countries fully implemented the pledges and intentions associated with the Copenhagen Accord, in the best case scenario they could cut emissions to around 49 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020.  This leaves a gap of around 5 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent that needs to be bridged over the coming decade – an amount equal to the emissions of all the world’s cars, buses and trucks in 2005.[1] Cutting “non-C02 gases” including avoiding HFCs and improving energy efficiency of refrigeration equipment – as is being done voluntarily by the Refrigerants, Naturally! Partners – contributes to quickly close this gap.

In 1987, F-gases such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and later also HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) were controlled under the Montreal Protocol due to their negative impact on the stratospheric ozone layer. Unfortunately, many of them were replaced with another generation of F-gas known as HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). HFCs, which have a direct global warming impact more than a thousand times worse than the reference gas carbon dioxide, are currently used in much of the world’s commercial refrigeration to preserve food, maintain quality, and extend shelf life at all stages in the supply chain. Refrigeration is critical in food and beverage production, processing, storage, transportation and point-of-sale (e.g. supermarket cabinets, beverage coolers, ice cream freezers). Commercial refrigerants represent 41% of total refrigerant emissions.[2]

The consequences of the rapid growth in HFC emissions are sobering. Because they are persistent in the atmosphere, HFCs will be responsible for between 9% and 19% of carbon-equivalent emissions by 2050 even if we do not act to reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions. If the reduction of CO2 remains the focus of climate change initiatives and nothing is done about HFCs, they will be responsible for between 28% and 45% of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2050.[3]

About the Roy Family Award:

The purpose of the Roy Family Award for Environmental Partnership is to draw attention to an exceptional partnership and its achievements while inspiring others to replicate or expand upon its success.

In 2009, the Roy Award was presented to the Mexico City Metrobus, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while improving the quality of life and transportation options in one of the largest cities in the world.The 2007 Award recognized the Hybrid Systems for Rural Electrification in Africa (HRSEA), a public-private partnership between Energiebau Solarstromsysteme, a German solar technology provider with international expertise, and InWEnt-Capacity Building International, Germany, a non-profit organization. HRSEA provides reliable, renewable electricity to rural African villages through a system of solar panel technology combined with modified diesel motors running on pure plant oil from the jatropha nut.

Source: www.belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

Rainforest Alliance Friendly Bananas and a More Sustainable Shangri-la.

Now there’s a new banana vying for sustainability attention: Dole has just announced that it is selling bananas from farms in South America that are certified by the Rainforest Alliance, following the lead of Chiquita. And Asia’s Shangri-la Hotel group has just released its first Sustainability Report. EarthCheck, the global benchmarking and sustainability certification programme, confirmed that Shangri-La reduced its CO2 emissions by 7%, energy consumption by 5% and water consumption by 6% per guest night in 2010 over 2009, based on 64 operating hotels.

By Tina Casey For Triple Pundit (4 May 2011):

When it comes to fresh produce, establishing brand recognition is a tricky business. Many commercially grown fruits and vegetables are indistinguishable from one company to the next. Bananas are one standout exception largely thanks to the Chiquita company’s groundbreaking ad campaign in the 1960′s. The company also has a jump on sustainability marketing, having worked with the Rainforest Alliance since the 1990′s. Now there’s a new banana vying for attention in that arena: Dole has just announced that it is selling bananas from farms in South America that are certified by the Rainforest Alliance.

Dole and the Rainforest Alliance…

Dole’s South American certified farms are located in Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala. The farms meet the Rainforest Alliance’s standards for environmental sustainability, but there is much more to the certification program than that. The Alliance uses standards developed through its work coordinating the Sustainable Agriculture Network (pdf), a coalition of local organizations that supports social equity and economic well being in addition to environmental protection.

More Sustainability Points for Dole

In the spirit of competition, Dole has stepped sustainability marketing up a notch by using the Internet to create a personal connection between consumers and farmers. Dole Organic’s website enables consumers to make an e-visit to the exact farm where their banana was grown, by referencing the farm’s code number on the Dole sticker.  The website provides information on the farm’s certifications, along with photos and a map. It’s a creative strategy that reinforces brand recognition by encouraging more consumers to take a closer look at their fruit stickers, while leveraging the company’s Alliance certification. Don’t be surprised if Chiquita comes up with its own extra layer of consumer engagement.

More Companies Aiming for Rainforest Certification

The Rainforest Alliance’s core constituents are the communities of small farmers and local employers who have come to depend on sustainability strategies for their survival, but the organization also recognizes that industry leaders with high name recognition play a critical role in transitioning the global food supply to more sustainable practices. In addition to working with Dole and Chiquita. the Alliance is working with Kraft Coffee and Unilever, which is aiming for 100% sourcing from certified farms for its Lipton teas by 2015.  Mars, Inc. also plans to transition to sustainable cocoa.

Communication Advantages of Rainforest Certification

Communicating sustainability concepts to the general public has always been a challenge, especially in a competitive marketplace where companies only have a few seconds to catch a consumer’s eye and engage their attention. Dole’s solution was to focus on the engaging “farm visit” concept rather than subject consumers to a barrage of information on, say, soil conservation. Similarly, Rainforest certification offers companies a shorthand way to inform consumers. All of their sustainability policies can be summed up by the Alliance’s catchy frog symbol, which is turning into a highly recognizable brand of its own.

Source: www.triplepundit.com

Shangri-La releases first sustainability report

e-turbo news, Global Travel Industry News (5 May 2011):

HONG KONG – Shangri-La Asia Limited today released its first sustainability report outlining the company’s progress in the areas of environment, health and safety, employees, supply chain and stakeholder relations for 2010. The report will be issued every two years to track improvements in its corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes.

Titled Enhance, Enrich, Embrace, the report shows Shangri-La’s commitment to environmental protection and resource management, a focus on social development through investments made in the welfare of colleagues and business partners and Shangri‑La’s Care for People Project committing each hotel to education and health projects in local children’s organisations over a minimum of five years.

Highlights include:

EarthCheck, the global benchmarking and sustainability certification programme, confirmed that Shangri-La reduced its CO2 emissions by seven per cent, energy consumption by five per cent and water consumption by six per cent per guest night in 2010 over 2009 based on 64 operating hotels.

Out of 40,800 permanent colleagues, people with disabilities (PWD) compose over one per cent of the headcount, progressing further towards the company’s target of two per cent.

Sixteen per cent of hotels have been certified with OHSA 18001 (Occupational Health and Safety Administration), including 10 hotels that were newly certified in 2010. Sixteen hotels are scheduled for certification in 2011.

One hundred per cent of all group contract suppliers adhere to the company’s code of conduct with regular external audits being performed to ensure consistency and compliance.

All hotels comply with eco-friendly packaging of bathroom amenities made of Plastarch material, which decomposes by almost 70 per cent in 80 days.

Over HK$2 million has been invested by hotels on various health and education projects offering over 3,300 children better school facilities, enhanced learning environments and hotel service skills.

The company launched its first CSR initiatives in 2005, which were streamlined and refined in 2009 with the hiring of a dedicated CSR officer. The programme’s three main areas were formalised in 2009 with Sustainability, Embrace and Sanctuary.

“Shangri-La has made a long term commitment to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally responsible manner. We are pleased to present this report which will serve as a benchmark for monitoring our development and progress,” said Greg Dogan, president and chief executive officer of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited. “The report is another step towards our goal of being leaders in corporate citizenship and sustainable development and improving the quality of life for the communities in which we do business.

The report references the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G3) in order to accurately present economic, social and environmental performance. This report meets GRI’s Application Level C, and covers 44 GRI performance indicators. All indicators have been selected for their relevance and where the most updated and accurate information for reporting is available. Information on GRI is available at www.globalreporting.org .

Source: www.eturbonews.com

The effects of climate change, the scarcity of food, future energy sources and how businesses treat the environment and their workers are all significant global issues that companies and investors can no longer ignore. It is little wonder then, that so-called responsible investing – also referred to as ethical, green or sustainable investing – is striking a chord with a growing number of individuals and fund managers. Sustainable investment advocate Kassia Klinger, an active environmentalist, is also a keen advocate for change through the newly established Climate Advocacy Fund set up by Australian Ethical Investment.

Sydney Morning Herald (1 May 2011):

The rise in ethical investment heralds an era in which people are preferring clean, green industries, writes Bina Brown.

THE effects of climate change, the scarcity of food, future energy sources and how businesses treat the environment and their workers are all significant global issues that companies and investors can no longer ignore.

It is little wonder then, that so-called responsible investing – also referred to as ethical, green or sustainable investing – is striking a chord with a growing number of individuals and fund managers.

At a time when many people are still reeling from the effects of the global financial crisis, the consumer demand for responsible investment products has almost doubled.

The Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) reports ethical adviser portfolios grew from $972 million to $1.46 billion in 2010, following a decrease of 21 per cent in 2009.

Managed responsible investment portfolios rose 10 per cent, from $14.02 billion to $15.41 billion.

While small compared to the overall funds management industry, the trend towards responsible investment is growing.

The executive director of the RIAA, Louise O’Halloran, says there are three main reasons people invest responsibly. The first is the improved investment returns from picking companies with strong governance, a robust culture, good management of people and progressive environmental strategies.

The second reason is how an investor thinks about the future for their children and grandchildren and any difference it may be possible to make.

Finally, some investors want to invest in line with their values and beliefs, avoiding companies that do harm to people and the environment and supporting those trying to make a difference.

Significantly, there is no reason returns should be sacrificed just because you want to invest responsibly.

The RIAA’s figures show the average responsible investor in Australia made better returns than investors in mainstream funds over one, three, five and seven years, in both Australian and international shares, as at the end of 2010.

Follow your beliefs

You may be more passionate about some issues than others. Your strategy then would be to make investment decisions based on your beliefs. You may wish to avoid supporting companies that profit from activities such as tobacco, gambling or uranium.

This method is known as a ”negative screen” – making a decision at the very start to exclude all such businesses from the investments you would consider for your portfolio.

Meanwhile ”positive” screening actively favours investment in companies that make products or engage in activities expected to benefit people or the environment.

Professional investors may differ in the way they construct a portfolio of responsible companies but generally they start with negative and positive screening.

Before the Perpetual Ethical SRI Fund will invest in a company, it must first pass four quality filters identified as sound management, conservative debt, quality of business and recurring earnings.

It then applies an ethical screen, which excludes companies that earn more than 5 per cent of their revenue from alcohol, gambling, tobacco, uranium and arms.

Its ”socially responsible investment” screen then assesses companies based on their performance in areas such as human rights, the environment, occupational health and safety, work and labour standards, animal rights and corporate governance.

Investing sustainably

There is no strict definition of what is sustainability or any uniform standards in reporting on environmental, social and governance issues, so a lot of what goes into a direct ”responsible” share portfolio will come down to an individual’s values.

The managing director of the specialist financial planning firm Ethinvest, Trevor Thomas, starts by asking his clients what issues are critical to them before he builds a share portfolio that meets those requirements.

”Most people don’t have any desire to invest in companies in breach of environmental or social standards,” he says. ”They want to be able to sleep with a good conscience.”

If a client doesn’t want to invest in a big bank or mining company for ethical reasons, he looks for ”proxies” in order to put together a diversified portfolio of companies.

An alternative to a mining company might be Sims Metal, which recycles metal. Financial services companies that aren’t banks include Computershare and the listed ethical fund manager, Hunter Hall.

”The idea is that you don’t have to sacrifice return to invest sustainably,” Thomas says. ”You can find ethically and sustainably screened alternatives in most asset classes. It depends on your criteria but you can put together a good diversified portfolio of sustainable companies.”

Backing her passion

SUSTAINABLE investment advocate Kassia Klinger made a decision 11 years ago to align her shareholdings with her beliefs.

”I have a strong desire to be able to sleep soundly at night, leave the world a better place than the one I found, manage risk and maximise returns,” she says.

With a specialist ethical investment adviser’s help, Kassia, who is studying for a master of management in sustainable leadership at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management, directs a family investment portfolio towards companies engaged in activities that benefit people or the environment.

Kassia is a baby boomer born on the cusp of Generation X. At a time of a significant intergenerational wealth transfer, she believes it is especially important to invest according to her strong values when making investment decisions on behalf of others.

As such, there are no mining companies in the portfolio and any energy-related stocks are involved in gas, sustainable-energy solutions or the infrastructure associated with it.

The industrial companies are all screened for the positive contribution they are making to the environment and society.

As an active environmentalist, Kassia is also a keen advocate for change through the newly established Climate Advocacy Fund set up by Australian Ethical Investment.

Rather than screen out companies based on their environment, social and governance (ESG) principles, the fund is an index fund that weights companies on their economic footprint (sales and cashflow) rather than the total value of their listed shares. The fund’s members and selected individuals then engage with companies and put forward resolutions at annual general meetings to bring about better ESG outcomes.

”It’s not just about avoiding the so-called ‘sin stocks’ but encouraging the big investors, like superannuation funds, to put their money where their mouths are,” Kassia says.

”I reckon they should put up or shut up.”

Source: www.smh.com.au

Lord of the Flies: Hook, Line and Sinker

Denial of the seriousness of human-caused climate change or the reliability of the science comes in many guises but none are more eccentric, more rhetorical or more consistently wrong than that manifested in the human form of Lord Christopher Monckton. Despite having no science qualifications, among other things, Lord Monckton argues that attempts by Governments and the United Nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and burning fossil fuels are part of a conspiracy to install a world government. In his eyes it’s all a socialist plot. Graham Readfearn reports On ABC’s The Drum. Read More

He’s coming to Australia. Again.

Australia prepares to swallow Monckton yet again

Graham Readfearn On ABC’s The Drum (6 May 2011)

Denial of the seriousness of human-caused climate change or the reliability of the science comes in many guises but none are more eccentric, more rhetorical or more consistently wrong than that manifested in the human form of Lord Christopher Monckton.

English hereditary peer Lord Monckton, the Third Viscount of Brenchley, is one of the world’s most charismatic and omnipresent climate change deniers, despite having no science qualifications.

He’s coming to Australia. Again.

Among other things, Lord Monckton argues that attempts by Governments and the United Nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and burning fossil fuels are part of a conspiracy to install a world government. In Lord Monckton’s eyes it’s all a socialist plot. Climate change is not caused by burning fossil fuels and, even if it was, the impact is negligible. No action is required.

Over the last few years as he has toured Australia, the UK and America, working climate scientists have examined and roundly debunked his unique interpretation of climate change science. The Australian science-based blog Skeptical Science currently lists some 75 “Monckton Myths”- each showing how Lord Monckton has misrepresented, misunderstood or misinterpreted the peer-reviewed science.

But as Lord Monckton’s credibility among working climate scientists continues to hover somewhere between zero and the negatives, plans are afoot to fly him to Australia for a repeat of his 2010 nationwide speaking tour, which received much media attention.

In a barely disguised fundraising advertisement, journalist James Massola wrote in his Capital Circle column for The Australian earlier this week how “funds are needed” to finance the tour. Massola helpfully linked to a website with account details for people to deposit money.

But even before the tour’s schedule is established, Lord Monckton has secured his first engagement with a spot at the annual convention of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies in Perth at the end of June, which includes the CSIRO among its official supporters.  His presentation is titled “Maths Lessons for Climate-Crazed Lawmakers”.

But support for Lord Monckton’s unique brand of climate denial is nothing new for the Australian mining community. At key stages in Lord Monckton’s 2010 tour of Australia, wealthy and respected mining figures were there to lend a hand, provide a forum and, in some cases, to give cash support.

In Queensland, the Brisbane Institute hosted a debate which was filmed and later broadcast by the ABC’s Big Ideas program and was covered in newspapers and on television news (I was on the debating panel).

But the Brisbane Institute ‘debate’ would likely not have gone ahead had it not been for the intervention of mining entrepreneur Bob Bryan. As one organiser stated in an email obtained by this writer, Mr Bryan underwrote the event to cover the $16,000 deposit required by the venue, the Hilton Brisbane.

Mr Bryan is as close to mining royalty as miners can get in Queensland. In 2009, he was inducted into the Queensland Government’s Business Leaders Hall of Fame for “outstanding entrepreneurship in the mining industry significantly contributing to Queensland’s economic development”.

Mr Bryan is also the inaugural “Honorary Life Member” of Queensland’s peak mining industry body, the Queensland Resources Council. He has a successful career as a director of mining companies and co-founded and chaired coal seam gas company Queensland Gas Company until it was sold in 2008 to UK-based BG Group for $5.6 billion.

In Perth, it was the turn of another of Australia’s mining elite to back Monckton’s climate denial tour. Mining magnate and Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart, chairman of Hancock Prospecting, offered a donation to the cause. She also made available a member of her own Hancock Prospecting staff to help co-ordinate the event, held at the Parmelia Hilton.

Accompanying Lord Monckton as a speaker at many of the venues, including Perth and Brisbane, was the University of Adelaide mining geologist Professor Ian Plimer, who is also non-executive director at CBH Resources and Ivanhoe Australia, a director of UK-listed Kefi Minerals, a director of Australia-based coal gas company Ormil Energy and chairman of tin mining company TNT Limited.

Appearing on several online lists of contacts and supporters of Lord Monckton’s 2010 tour was Ian Runge, a director of the Brisbane Institute. Mr Runge is a founder of Runge Limited, which the Brisbane Institute says is “one of Australia’s leading mining technology services organisations” working with 18 offices in 10 countries “with sales to major resource companies worldwide”.

Whatever the motivations of climate change deniers, the result of their activities is to generate doubt in the minds of the public, whether that be doubt about the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide or doubt about the need or impact of legislation to try and reduce fossil fuel burning.

The idea that anyone should take Lord Monckton seriously is treated with puzzlement in his native UK. Former Conservative MP John Gummer, who was Mrs Thatcher’s environment minister, commented to the ABC in March that Lord Monckton “isn’t taken seriously by anybody.” He added: “I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher’s office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he’s not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come (to Australia).”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says a recent claim by Lord Monckton that Europe’s emissions trading scheme had doubled the cost of electricity was “utter rubbish”. Analysis by the UK’s electricity regulator ofgem in March showed that environmental costs amounted to just eight per cent of energy costs for consumers.

“I am amazed that anybody in Australia takes Monckton seriously,’’ says Mr Ward. “He is not a scientist, but the deputy leader of a fringe UK political party. Frankly his credibility in the UK has sunk to near-zero since the broadcast of a documentary on the BBC earlier this year, during which Monckton was filmed on his last hilarious visit to Australia.”

So what is the motivation of the mining industry in Australia to support climate change denial of any kind? Do they fear that climate legislation such as a carbon price will simply hurt their bottom line? Do they see a public confused or apathetic about climate change as a potent part of their lobbying efforts in Canberra?

Who knows? But as the donation plate for the Lord Monckton 2011 Denial Tour is passed around their offices they should ask themselves this: Can we fool the Australian public a second time.

Graham Readfearn is a freelance journalist and writer covering the environment and sustainability.

Source: www.abc.net.au