Green Shift to Save the World US$2 Trillion Dollars

A new World Economic Forum Report – “More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and Resource Efficiency” –  says up to US$ 2 trillion could be saved through resource-efficient measures across just three sectors – carbon, steel and iron – in the major economies alone. Industry-led action for smarter resource efficiency can be created without environmental depletion and degradation. It also reveals some sustainability efforts are stuck in “pilot paralysis”. Read More

Sustainable Competitiveness Index measures how sustainability impacts a country’s competitiveness

A new World Economic Forum Report says up to US$ 2 trillion could be saved through resource-efficient measures across just three sectors – carbon, steel and iron – in the major economies alone.

The report, More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and Resource Efficiency, outlines the opportunity and imperative for industry-led action for smarter resource efficiency through which economic value can be created without environmental depletion and degradation.

The report, produced with the support of Accenture, reveals sustainability efforts stuck in “pilot paralysis”, with slow intergovernmental progress and increasing citizen-consumer impatience as we look onto a decade of economic and societal turbulence. It suggests that industry can lead the way as efficiently, and perhaps with more immediate benefit to the consumer and the global economy, than traditional models for global action that exist today.

“The sustainability agenda is not an abstract development concept,” said Sarita Nayyar, Managing Director, Head of Consumer Industries, World Economic Forum. “There is real economic value at stake. Companies that effectively weave resource efficiency into their core strategy and operations can drive revenue growth, reduce cost and improve brand reputation.”

It is increasingly evident that the exhaustion of natural resources is a structural risk to long-term economic stability. A combination of a changing climate and increased demand in emerging economies has been pushing up costs of agricultural commodities. The price of cocoa rose by 246% and palm oil by 230% in just over the past decade. By 2030, freshwater demand will have exceeded the current capacity to supply by over 40% globally with close to 4 billion people will be living in areas of high water stress.

The business case for the “green shift” is strong. If consumer goods industries increase their energy efficiency, they could save US$ 37 billion in 2030. Given the current geopolitical stresses and rising demand, which could potentially result in a 50% increase in energy costs, the 2030 figure could be as high as US$ 55.5 billion.

A country’s sustainability also increases its competitive advantage. India, the US and China fell more than 10 places last year, while Brazil, Kenya and the Philippines rose over 10 places on the Forum’s Sustainable Competitiveness Index, which ranks the impact of natural and social wealth on a country’s competitiveness.

“Scaling resource efficiency is not just ‘nice’ to have. It is a business imperative, a new model for sustainable growth in a world where we need to do more with less,” said Peter Lacy, managing director, Sustainability Services EALA for Accenture and Project Advisor. “It means rethinking business models and supply chains. It requires fundamental shifts, both in the way we deliver the products and services people want and need, and in the relationship between consumers and consumption.”

The report‘s findings conclude that business can pave the way to securing competitive advantage in a resource-constrained world by empowering consumers and governments through the following actions:

Transform demand: The consumer is at the heart of sustainable consumption. However, consumers care more about price, performance and convenience than sustainability. About 50% of consumers surveyed in over 40 countries stated that they do everything they can to protect the environment, but only a small proportion buys ethical brands and pays more for organic food. Consumers need to be more consistent with their actions, and businesses need to engage with consumers to ensure they are able to match their actions with their desires.

Transform value chains: Many companies have specific initiatives that aim to make their business more sustainable, but these often exist in one department or in a silo. Companies need to embed sustainability across the entire organization to be more efficient, innovate to tap into new markets and collaborate within and across industries to drive scale around sustainability. This needs to happen in every company for sustainability to ever get to scale.

Transform the rules of the game: Intergovernmental processes are not delivering fast enough. Business can help shape the policy landscape to drive speed and scale. Key areas for public-private interaction will be the greening of public procurement, reform of harmful subsidies, improving regional trade agreements and enabling long-term investments.

Although none of these dimensions are new in their own right, a holistic approach is currently missing. To bring solutions to scale, there is a need for a critical mass of stakeholders to work together across sectors. At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012 in Davos-Klosters this month, the Forum will drive a business-led dialogue to help achieve step changes in sustainability. Along with key partners, the Forum will develop a programme of practical action in time for Rio+20 to ensure delivery on promises made.

Source: www.weforum.org

“We’re waging war on waste, one plant at a time”

Kraft sends no waste to landfill at 36 manufacturing plants in 13 countries. And manufacturing accounts for more than 99% of the solid waste Kraft generates. Waste is one of the six areas it has identified for improving the firm’s environmental responsibility and sustainability. The others are agricultural commodities, packaging, energy, water and operations related to transportation and distribution. Read More

Kraft Achieves Zero Waste at 36 Food Plants Around the World

By Leslie Guevarra in Greenb Biz.com (2 February 2012):

Kraft, the maker of food products ranging from Dentyne to mac-and-cheese mix, sends no waste to landfill at 36 manufacturing plants in 13 countries, the company reported.

Waste is one of the six areas that Kraft has identified as sweet spots for improving the firm’s environmental responsibility and sustainability. (The others are agricultural commodities, packaging, energy, water and operations related to transportation and distribution.) And manufacturing accounts for more than 99 percent of the solid waste Kraft generates.

“We’re waging war on waste, one plant at a time,” said Christine McGrath, Kraft vice president for global sustainability, in a statement.

Last year, the company set a goal of reducing net waste from manufacturing by 15 percent by 2015. That target builds on Kraft’s earlier goal to cut waste by 15 percent between 2005 and 2011, which the firm handily exceeded: By the end of 2010, Kraft had slashed waste by 42 percent. The percentages represent reductions in the ratio of kilos of waste resulting from a ton of production.

As of today, waste reduction by Kraft, normalized to production, stands at 50 percent compared to 2005 levels, the company said in a recap of its efforts since revising the waste reduction goal last May.

The firm is now recycling or reusing as much as 90 percent of manufacturing waste, and at some sites byproducts from manufacturing are used to create energy. Twelve of the plants that no longer send waste to landfill are in the United States, 24 are in Europe and several other facilities have made strides in reducing rubbish.

Here are some highlights from Kraft’s progress report, which praised employees for coming up with novel ways to cut waste and new uses for byproducts:

United States

• Bakeries in Chicago and Naperville, Ill., that make Nabisco and Triscuit products became zero waste by the end of last year.

• A Philadelphia Cream Cheese plant in Beaver Dam, Wisc., worked with the city to build an anaerobic digester, which processes whey waste into biogas that is used to generate electricity for the local grid.

• Two plants in the California city of Fresno and one in San Leandro diverted more than 100 tons of food waste for use as animal feed. The facilities, which make Capri Sun, Kool-Aid, Tang, Maxwell House, Yuban and Cornnuts, have received several honors from the state’s Waste Reduction Awards Program.

Russia

• A coffee plant in St. Petersburg cut waste sent to landfill by 90 percent by reusing coffee bean shipping bags and pallets and by sending off 15,000 tons of coffee grounds to be turned into fertilizer for farms in the area.

Indonesia

• Plants in Cikarang and Karawang, where plastic packaging film creates most of the waste, found a recycler that turns the material into bags and buckets. The facilities cut waste by 40 percent last year.

Austria

• During the past year, a coffee plant in Vienna has sent 250 tons of used coffee bean husks to a biomass power plant that creates heat and electricity for nearby homes.

Germany

• A Philadelphia Cream Cheese plant in Fallingbostel has been a zero waste facility since 2009.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

Singapore Raises Barrier to Sea Levels Linked to Climate Change

A 15-km (10 mile) stretch of crisp white beach is one of the key battlegrounds in Singapore’s campaign to defend its hard-won territory against rising sea levels linked to climate change. Stone breakwaters are being enlarged and their heights raised. Barges carrying imported sand top up the beach, which is regularly breached by high tides. Singapore, the world’s second most densely populated country after Monaco, has already reclaimed large areas, adding more than 20% to its size since 1960. Read More

By David Fogarty for Reuters (27 January 2012):

A 15-km (10 mile) stretch of crisp white beach is one of the key battlegrounds in Singapore’s campaign to defend its hard-won territory against rising sea levels linked to climate change.

Stone breakwaters are being enlarged on the low-lying island state’s man-made east coast and their heights raised. Barges carrying imported sand top up the beach, which is regularly breached by high tides.

Singapore, the world’s second most densely populated country after Monaco, covers 715 square km (276 sq miles). It has already reclaimed large areas to expand its economy and population — boosting its land area by more than 20 percent since 1960.

But the new land is now the frontline in a long-term battle against the sea.

Every square metre is precious in Singapore.

One of the world’s wealthiest nations in per-capita terms, it is also among the most vulnerable to climate change that is heating up the planet, changing weather patterns and causing seas to rise as the oceans warm and glaciers and icecaps melt.

Late last year, the government decided the height of all new reclamations must be 2.25 metres (7.5 feet) above the highest recorded tide level — a rise of a metre over the previous mandated minimum height.

The additional buffer was costly but necessary, Environment Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told Reuters in a recent interview.

“You are buying insurance for the future,” he said during a visit to a large flood control barrier that separates the sea from a reservoir in the central business area.

The decision underscores the government’s renowned long-term planning and the dilemma the country faces in fighting climate change while still trying to grow. It also highlights the problem facing other low-lying island states and coastal cities and the need to prepare.

A major climate change review for the Chinese government last week said China’s efforts to protect vulnerable coastal areas with embankments were inadequate. It said in the 30 years up to 2009, the sea level off Shanghai rose 11.5 centimetres (4.5 inches); in the next 30 years, it will probably rise another 10 to 15 centimetres.

POCKET POWERHOUSE

Since it was created by the British as a trading port in the early 19th century, Singapore has turned to the sea to expand and has become one of the world’s fastest-growing countries in terms of new land area. More land is being regularly reclaimed.

In this pocket powerhouse, there is much to protect. Singapore’s recipe for success is to be a city of superlatives to keep ahead of competitors. It is a major Asian centre for finance, shipping, trading, manufacturing, even gambling, with giant casinos as glitzy as those in Las Vegas or Macau.

Much of the city centre is on reclaimed land, including an expanding financial district, a new terminal for ocean liners and a $3.2 billion underground expressway, part of which runs under the sea.

The industrial west has one of Asia’s largest petrochemical complexes, much of it on reclaimed islands.

The wealth generated from these sectors has created a $255 billion economy. Per-capita GDP stands on a par with the United States at nearly $50,000, though opposition politicians complain about growing wealth gaps within the island’s society.

The U.N. climate panel says sea levels could rise between 18 and 59 centimetres (7 to 24 inches) this century and more if parts of Antarctica and Greenland melt faster. Some scientists say the rise is more likely to be in a range of 1 to 2 metres.

Singapore could cope with a rise of 50 cm to 1 m, coastal scientist Teh Tiong Sa told Reuters during a tour of the East Coast Park, the city’s main recreation area.

“But a rise of two metres would turn Singapore into an island fortress,” said Teh, a retired teacher from Singapore’s National Institute for Education. That would mean constructing more and higher walls to protect against the sea.

Indeed, between 70 and 80 percent of Singapore already has some form of coastal protection, the government says.

The dilemma Singapore faces is mirrored by other coastal cities, such as Mumbai, Hong Kong, Bangkok and New York, though not all have Singapore’s financial muscle.

The threat underscores the limits on Singapore’s physical growth in terms of further reclamation, costs and managing long-term growth of its population, which has risen from 3 million in 1990 to nearly 5.2 million in 2011.

Topping up reclamation levels “does not fundamentally change the way we approach reclamation — while we reclaim to meet our development needs, we are cognisant that there is a physical limit to how much more land we can reclaim,” a spokesman for the National Climate Change Secretariat told Reuters.

To make more efficient use of existing land, a government agency floated the idea this month of building a science city 30 stories underground.

WINDS OF CHANGE

Climate change presents a host of other challenges.

More intense rainfall has caused embarrassing floods in the premier Orchard Road shopping area.

And the government says average daily temperature in tropical Singapore could increase by 2.7 to 4.2 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 7.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the current average of 26.8 deg C (80.2 F) by 2100, which could raise energy use for cooling.

Here lies another dilemma. The country is already one of the most energy intensive in Asia to power its industries and fiercely airconditioned malls and glass office towers — a paradox in a country at such risk from climate change.

The government has focused on energy efficiency, such as strict building codes and appliance labelling to curb the growth of planet-warming carbon emissions and has steadily switched its power stations to burn gas instead of fuel oil.

It has also invested heavily in slick subway lines and promoted investment and research in the clean-tech sector.

But electricity demand is still set to grow. Consumption doubled between 1995 and 2010, government figures show, and long-term reliance on fossil fuels for energy is unlikely to change, given limited space for green energy such as solar.

Balakrishnan said the government is keen to do its part in any global fight against climate change and that pushing for greater energy efficiency made sense anyway in a country with virtually no natural resources.

But there was a limit to how fast it would move, opening the way for criticism from some countries that Singapore was hiding behind its developing country status under the United Nations, which obliges it to take only voluntary steps to curb emissions.

“What we want is a level playing field and unilateral moves are not feasible, not possible, for a small, tiny island state that actually is not going to make a real difference at a global level to greenhouse gases,” Balakrishnan said.

Singapore’s emissions, though, are forecast to keep growing, having roughly doubled since 1990. The government is looking at putting a price on carbon emissions and perhaps setting up an emissions trading market.

“We’re already half way there in the sense we are already pricing everything according to the market,” said Tilak Doshi, head of energy economics at the Energy Studies Institute in Singapore.

He pointed to Singapore being the world’s largest bunkering port.

“Bunkering is huge in terms of carbon emissions and Singapore can play a key role in how to handle global shipping emissions,” he said. “How to handle bunker fuels — do we tax it, do we cap-and-trade it, do we get bunkering companies to start trading emissions certificates?”

The government has a number of levers to adjust energy policies over time. Against rising sea levels, it is a campaign in progress to tame the tides.

In some cases, it might be better to let the sea reclaim the land in a managed retreat, said Teh, the coastal scientist.

“It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Some areas you keep, others you let go.” For land-limited Singapore, that could prove a tough decision to make. (Editing by Ron Popeski and Sanjeev Miglani)

Source: www.reuters.com

Climate Change Action Replaced by Clean Energy Talk

When the US President moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political, says Maxwell T Boykoff  in Washington Post.  Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing. Read More

By Maxwell T Boykoff, in Washington Post (28 January 2012):

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”

In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to non-technical audiences.”

These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011.

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate. “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming. . . . ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming,’ ” the memo said.

Luntz was not alone in wanting to change the terminology. The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed rebranding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”

But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions.

To start, talking only about clean energy omits critical biological and physical factors that contribute to the warming climate. “Clean energy” doesn’t call to mind the ways we use the land and how the environment is changing. Where in the term is the notion of the climate pollution that results from clear-cutting Amazon rain forests? What about methane release in the Arctic, where global warming is exposing new areas of soil in the permafrost?

“Clean energy” also neatly bypasses any idea that we might need to curb our consumption. If the energy is clean, after all, why worry about how much we’re using — or how unequal the access to energy sources might be?

And terms such as “carbon pollution” ignore that climate change isn’t just a carbon issue. Some greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, do not contain carbon, and not all carbon-containing emissions, such as carbon monoxide, trap heat.

When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political.

Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.

Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”

Source: www.washingtonpost.com

Built-in Behaviour Change & Better Communication for Sustainability

How to produce sustainable behaviour?  Brands could build in behaviour change so there is no choice but to use a product in a lower impact way. Innovations that push people towards sustainable living without preaching can range from large-scale infrastructure such as cycle hire schemes, to hair-cleaning products. What about social media’s role? The new SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index identified at least 250 major corporates that are engaged in some form of social media sustainability communications. Read More

Why behaviour change is at the heart of sustainable business

Brands must find ways to be innovative in order to push people towards sustainable living without preaching to them

Sylvia Rowley for the Guardian Professional Network (23 January 2012):

Removing bins to force staff to use recycling points is a small change that may have a big impact on a firm’s sustainability goals.

Research shows that changing people’s habits through sheer force of persuasion is hard, especially if their surroundings stay the same.

Marketing campaigns can try to encourage people to live more sustainably, but “it’s entirely in the hands of the consumer whether they do or not”, says Lucy Shea, CEO of sustainable communications agency Futerra. “It rests entirely on the efficacy of that campaign, and often behaviour change doesn’t result.”

An alternative is for brands to “build in behaviour change so there is no choice but to use a product in a lower impact way”, says Shea. Innovations that push people towards sustainable living without preaching can range from large-scale infrastructure such as cycle hire schemes, to hair-cleaning products.

“Dry shampoo is one of my favourite examples. It was never made to be environmental, it was made basically for ease” says Shea. “But the result of being able to spray your hair between washes, and therefore wash it less, is actually the same as all of these worthy environmental campaigns asking you to spend less time in the shower.”

Smart technology has great potential for designing sustainability into everyday life. Parcel carrier UPS, for example, has programmed its truck drivers’ navigation systems to minimise the amount of fuel they use for each journey. On American roads, turning left at a junction leads to higher fuel consumption because drivers have to wait to cross an extra lane of traffic before they can turn. By programming their drivers’ route maps to avoid left turns, UPS makes sure they drive more efficiently.

Smart thermostats in homes go further still, not just guiding consumers but acting sustainably on their behalf. The “learning thermostat” designed by the former head of iPods at Apple, for example, can sense whether anyone is at home, or what the weather is like, and adjust the house’s temperature accordingly. According to the BBC, its makers claim it can cut household heating bills by 20-30%.

Jon Fletcher, sustainable behaviours lead at accountancy firm PWC, says that the buildings we inhabit can mould our actions in many ways. When PWC moved into a new office in the spring of 2011 the company tried to embed sustainable living into the fabric of the site.

This included making sure the new location had good public transport links (they chose London Bridge), minimising car parking to five or six spaces, offering about 250 bike stands, building “far more” video conferencing units than in previous buildings, removing personal bins to force people to use the recycling bins on each floor, setting all printers to print double-sided and even programming lifts so that staff choose their floor before getting into the lift, and people who are going to the same floor are sent to the same lift.

“People have responded positively to the whole building,” Fletcher says. “The changes might sound small and simple but they can have quite a significant impact.” Paper usage went down by 15% in 2010, for example.

But nudging staff and consumers towards sustainable living is not enough on its own, Fletcher warns. “Changing defaults and decision-making structures so that people behave differently is hugely important. But it’s also important for us to talk to them about sustainability.” Bike racks might be a prerequisite and a prompt for cycling to work, for example, but without well-designed communications to encourage and equip people to get on their bikes, takeup would be lower.

Fletcher believes that big changes will only come about through a mixture of built-in behaviour change and communication. “We’ll never make a big impact unless we can get culture change as well, and in order to do that you have to be part of the conversation with people.”

Sylvia Rowley is an award-winning freelance journalist who writes about the environment and social issues. She is also a part-time policy adviser at the thinktank Green Alliance, where she edits a blog on green living.

Matthew Yeomans for the Guardian Professional Network  (24 January 2012) says:

Communicating sustainability via social media has become mainstream.

• More companies are using Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs to talk about sustainability than ever before

• Social Media Sustainability Index puts GE, IBM, Sony and Levi in the top ten

Companies are increasingly making use of social media to facilitate discussion about sustainability.

Back at the end of 2010 we published the first ever review of how major companies were using social media to communicate sustainability. The reason for our research was fairly straightforward: social media had been fully embraced by the marketing, PR and internal communication profession. At the same time every company was looking to show its commitment to full sustainability or at least to corporate and social responsibility programs. How we wondered, were the two strands of building a better business being pieced together?

The inaugural Social Media Sustainability Index found 120 companies that were using social media for sustainability comms. Yet, when we dug deeper, just 60 of those were devoting any dedicated resources to that mission.

Fast-forward to the end of 2011 and a new landscape of social media sustainability is emerging. In researching the new SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index we identified at least 250 major corporates that are engaged in some form of social media sustainability comms. Of those more than 100 have a blog, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter channel dedicated to talking about sustainability.

What changed? Well, first, companies have come to realise that embracing social media has made them all media companies and that means they have to publish regularly and with reliable content. Next, take your pick from the Pepsi Refresh Project, GE’s Ecomagination Challenge or IBM’s Smarter Cities and you’ll find big budget and big ideas that made CMOs sit up and say: “We want our good deeds to go viral…”.

The grand ideas of these projects really made sustainability/CSR communications a sexy proposition for many in the world of marketing and corporate communications who, up until that point, had felt the do-gooder stuff was best left buried somewhere at the back of the annual report.

Of course this mainstream marketing embrace of sustainability didn’t simply emerge because of competitive jealousy. In a number of high-profile cases it has been driven by a real commitment with companies to become more sustainable operations. And the companies that truly are making their business more sustainable – be it through improved energy efficiency, lowering emissions, policing their supply chains, pioneering ethical sourcing and promoting equitable working environments – have a distinct advantage in social media communications. That’s because they have a good and believable story to tell and, good storytelling remains the most valuable currency in social media.

The stand out leaders in this year’s Social Media Sustainability Index all have a few things in common: they fully embrace their new-found power to publish and provide useful, regular, transparent and creative content for their social media communities.

Some like Levis, IBM, Sony, Kimberly-Clark and PepsiCo seek to mobilise sustainability and cause-related awareness through heavy marketing-led digital programmes like Levis’ Pioneers, Sony’s Open Planet Ideas, Huggies’ Moms Inspired, PepsiCo’s Womens’ Inspiration Network and, yes, Pepsi Refresh (still going strong).

Others, like GE, Ford, Allianz and VF Corporation’s Timberland have structured their sustainability communications around a very professional editorial operation, supplying information and content through a variety of social media platforms. Companies like Renault and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentario (BBVA), meanwhile, seek to build a cohesive community around social media projects like Sustainable-Mobility, Friends & Family and Open Mind.

One hundred companies blogging, tweeting, Facebooking and YouTubing adds up to a lot of social media sustainability activity. In this second annual Index, we’ve tried to sift through the new noise of all that new people, planet, profit social media commentary to identify the best practice trends. By doing so we hope to provide a social media roadmap for communicators throughout the sustainability and CSR community.

How has social media and sustainability progressed since the first index? What do you think of the projects and initiatives companies in the top ten are working on?

Matthew Yeomans is the lead author of the SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index, and the co-founder of Social Media Influence. The full 49-page index is free to download here.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

In for the Kill: Revenge Film Supports Electric Cars

“Revenge of the Electric Car” has its Australian Premiere in Brisbane this month, after getting rave reviews  elsewhere. Five years ago, the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” took the auto industry by storm. Now the sequel, “Revenge of the Electric Car”, is being embraced by the industry,  as the new film follows four companies’ executives and the development of their electric cars. Read More

‘Revenge of the Electric Car’ goes corporate

Richard Cassels of Climate Leadership brings us news from Brisbane of an upcoming free community screening of the new documentary “Revenge of the Electric Car” hosted by Local Power and QUT Science and Engineering Faculty at 7pm on Monday 13 February  in Z-411 at Gardens Point.

The new documentary is by the director of popular 2006 doco “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Just released on DVD in the US, “Revenge” will tell the stories behind the development on recent Electric Vehicles (EVs) from major manufacturers like the Nissan LEAF, GM Volt, Tesla as well as a small US EV conversion company.

Interest in EVs is growing and several models are being released in Australia in 2012.   Local Power believes that EVs, powered by our rooftop Solar PVs, will form a large part of a 100% renewable energy transport system.

It’s quite likely that this screening of Revenge of the Electric Car will be the Australian Premiere of this movie!

If you feel that an Electric Vehicle (EV) could be part of your future, or you’re just curious about them, we would be delighted if you could join us for this special screening of this outstanding new 90 minute documentary.

Spaces are limited so please RSVP below to ensure we can fit everyone in.  As this is a free screening, the RSVP does not guarantee you a seat.  Attendance on the night will be “first in, best dressed”.

Local Power will be accepting donations on the night to help defray the costs for this special screening.

Local Power is passionate about Solar Power and has been delivering PV Solar to Brisbane households, community buildings and business for over 4 years.

We believe that along with more walking, cycling and better public transport options, EVs powered by renewable energy, including our own rooftop solar, are an important part of our future sustainable transport needs.

For more information or to book, contact: www.localpower.net.au

Two reviews on the “Revenge“  film follow.

By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY:

Five years ago, the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” took the auto industry by storm. Now comes the sequel, “Revenge of the Electric Car”, and it is being embraced by the industry. The new film follows four companies’ executives and the development of their electric cars. They include General Motors’ Bob Lutz and the Chevrolet Volt; Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn and the electric Leaf; Tesla’s Elon Musk and the creation of the electric roadster; and a start-up firm headed by Greg Abbott in Culver City, Calif.

Who Killed and Revenge, the original and sequel, are polar opposites, yet done by the same true believer, director Chris Paine. The contrast:

The first movie had a fresh, brash, anti-corporate theme, with protesters being dragged away and automakers who clammed up about what came across as a conspiracy to bury a promising technology. The new movie opening today is actually a salute to the efforts by automakers to create electric cars. Several of them sponsored screenings leading up to today’s release. It takes viewers into the boardrooms and humanizes the executives who came across as greedy robber-barons the first time.

The first movie seemed brazen and unpolished, guerrilla filmmaking at its best. This new effort is slick and beautifully photographed, the product of what seems like a much-larger budget.

The first film was a personal crusade, rich with rebels who are true believers in the electric-car cause. The second is dispassionate with an unemotional narration and style that will remind you of the journalism practiced on PBS’ Frontline.

Still, Revenge is a must-see movie for anyone interested in cars. With automakers now quaking in fear that they know how badly Paine could make them look, they grant him full access. Yet given the Occupy Wall Street protests and backlash against corporations, the new film seems out of touch with the anger of the times.

Source: www.content.usatoday.com

The last movie about the electric car asked who killed it. Apparently it’s back from the dead.

You can’t help but notice that despite all the conspiracy theories, electric cars are in the news, in the reviews and soon to be in the showrooms. But they’re still considered something of an oddity. And there’s still debate about their future.

This film follows four people who could be said to each hold a compass point in the debate. GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz is signature Detroit industry. Elon Musk is the dot-com whizzkid who wants to show Detroit how it should be done – with his Tesla brand. Nissan-Renault boss Carlos Ghosn wants to put an affordable electric in every household. “Gadget” Abbott is a home inventor and one of the multitude who are converting cars to electric.

Filming for Chris Paine’s follow-up movie started very soon after he finished Who Killed The Electric Car, but a great deal of the footage – including the carmakers’ strategy and planning meetings – was under embargo until this year. That date alone suggests the automotive industry thinks we’re in a change phase.

But we still have to wait for the movie theatre industry to catch up. At the moment you’ve only been able to see the doco in selected screenings as it does the festival rounds.

Source: www.carsguide.com.au

Ecologically, it’s a Green Label for GM Cars

In an industry first, General Motors’ Chevy brand has created a green label for its cars and will roll out the sticker bearing environmental data this month starting with the 2012 Chevy Sonic. The Ecologic sticker is the first voluntary and third-party certified label of its kind for autos, although environmental product labelling is becoming more prevalent in the US for building materials. Read More

By Leslie Guevarra in Green Biz.com (26 January 2012):

In an industry first, General Motors’ Chevy brand has created a green label for its cars and will roll out the sticker bearing environmental data February starting with the 2012 Chevy Sonic.

The Ecologic label will be affixed to the driver’s side rear window of Sonic sedans and hatchbacks in the U.S. market by the end of February, GM and Chevy announced today. The automaker also said it will place Ecologic stickers on all cars under the Chevrolet nameplate for the 2013 model year.

“We’ve taken an environment leadership role (with the Chevy Volt electric car) and we thought this was the next evolutionary step,” said Chevy Brand Marketing Manager Bill Devine.

“From a sustainability point of view what this signals, I think, is that we’re trying to provide consumers with relevant information that we know they’re very interested in,” said Mike Robinson, General Motor’s vice president of sustainability and regulatory affairs.

Devine and Robinson talked to me this morning about the auto company’s latest green initiative, which it undertook with the Two Tomorrows group as the validator of environmental claims.

The Ecologic sticker is the first voluntary and third-party certified label of its kind for autos, although environmental product labeling is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. for building materials.

Federal regulators, which require car companies to disclose fuel consumption data and other vehicle information on new cars sold in the United States, revamped their labeling last year to make it even more explicit. And in California and New York, new cars also must display a global warming scorecard.

Supplementing the mandated information, the sticker devised by Chevy tells prospective buyers about the environmental measures taken at manufacturing and assembly facilites, fuel-saving technology in the car, and the percentage by weight of material in the car that can be recycled.

The idea is to convey what Chevy has done to ease the environmental impacts of its cars during its lifecycle — or “before the road, on the road and after the road,” as Devine put it.

Although the sticker is about 7 by 14 inches, there’s not enough room to display other key environmental information about the cars, Devine said, so Chevy is launching a microsite that will provide further details: www.chevrolet.com/ecologic.

The site is expected to have expanded green data on the Sonics by the end of February and for now lays out why Chevy developed the label.

GM uses recycled content in car parts and interiors, but that info, as yet, isn’t included. Robinson said the Ecologic label will develop further as the firm collects and verifies more environmental data and refines how to communicate the information. “We view this as we view the larger sustainability efforts in the company, this is a journey, it never ends and it will evolve over time,” he said. “This is not a static, once-and-done type of thing.”

The company focused on Sonic for the green sticker in part because it is still a new addition in the Chevy line, and because it is the only car of its class made in the U.S. — a factor that resonates among car shoppers who want to buy American and makes it easier for the company to track the attributes included on the Ecologic label.

The initiative is part of a broader effort by GM to reduce the environmental impacts of its operations and products, curb energy consumption and carbon emissions, and save money.

GM’s green commitments include a goal to achieve zero-waste-to-landfill status at its facilities worldwide and a pledge to invest some $40 million projects that will reduce the company’s carbon emissions by 8 million metric tons.

The company also is increasing its public profile in emergency environmental efforts. GM made news when it promised to recycle the booms used to clean up the BP oil spill for making parts for the Volt. Then GM captured headlines again when the project turned out to be more successful than expected, diverting more than 212,000 pounds of waste from landfill.

The announcement of the Ecologic label came on the eve the Washington Auto Show and follows two earlier green developments by the company this month — the release of its latest sustainability report and plans for a special California edition of the Volt that will qualify for a $1,500 state rebate and a carpool lane sticker.

Asked if there are further projects in the offing, Robinson said: “You can expect a pretty consistent drumbeat of things coming from GM on the sustainability front.”

Leslie Guevarra is an editor at GreenBiz.com.

She has been a reporter and editor online and in print, an associate producer and public affairs program host on television, and a podcaster.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

How Smart are Energy Meters in UK Homes?

The Ministry says customers will save in two ways. First, by seeing their energy usage they should be able to alter it to lower their bills. Second, accurate billing will save us a lot of time and money dealing with customers who have a wrongly estimated bill. In a competitive energy market this should be passed on in the form of lower bills. But not everyone is happy about the introduction of smart energy meters for UK Homes. Read More

Julian Knight   in The Independent  (29 January 2012):

Eleven billion pounds, millions of households and a decade to finish the job. No it’s not high speed rail two but the roll-out of smart energy meters in every home across the UK.

The meters will allow consumers to see precisely how much energy they are using minute by minute and end the much disliked practice of estimated billing. Seeing how much energy is being using and its cost is meant to prompt us to go easier on the gas and electric. Do your bit to save the planet and cut your bills at the same time, that’s the big idea.

But the scheme, which has already started to a limited extent – over half a million homes have had the meters installed in the past year according to our research – is under fire, with a leading consumer group calling for at least a major rethink or for it to be strangled at birth.

Meanwhile, a recent Public Accounts Committee report sounded alarm over the high costs and uncertain benefits of a scheme likely to disrupt the lives of millions.

“This scheme is a recipe for expensive chaos,” says Richard Lloyd, the executive director of consumer group Which?. “We will have representatives of energy firms – which are less trusted than even the banks – visiting every home in the land to rip out the existing meter to install a smart one. Apart from the practical and security difficulties who will pay for this? The answer: the consumer.”

But, according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), costs won’t be passed on to the consumer because of competition between providers, a point echoed by Elliot Grady, from British Gas.

“Customers will save in two ways. First, by seeing their energy usage they should be able to alter it to lower their bills. Second, accurate billing will save us a lot of time and money dealing with customers who have a wrongly estimated bill. In a competitive energy market this should be passed on in the form of lower bills.”

However, with Ofgem, the energy regulator, currently investigating providers for potential price fixing and criticism over higher bills, can consumers really rely on competition to fix it for them? “The officials at DECC must be the only people in the country who believe the market is in any way competitive,” says Mr Lloyd.

He also has serious doubts over the theory that smart meters will even lead to reduced energy usage.

“Remember that the people who have been trailed are the most interested in the area of energy saving and are bound to react proactively to the information they get from the smart meter readers,” says Mr Lloyd. “However, who is to say that most households will not either ignore the information or perhaps just make usage cuts for a couple of weeks and then return to their old ways?

“And will providers not increase per unit pricing if they find that usage falls? It could be £11bn wasted.”

Yet providers say that the evidence supports the idea that smart meters change behaviour: “Of the customers we’ve surveyed that have smart meters installed, 80 per cent say it has changed the way they use energy, and 64 per cent said it prompts them to make energy efficiency measures,” Mr Grady says. Official estimates put bill savings through smart metering at between 5 and 10 per cent.

Likewise, First Utility, a smaller provider which since it was founded in 2008 by Mark Daeche, has specialised in smart meter technology says 56 per cent of its customers have changed how they use energy after installation and, crucially, the technology can be built upon.

“By providing the right tools, such as an online portal where customers can see in more detail when they are using energy, it can empower them to make changes and therefore reduce their costs,” says Jonathan McGregor, First Utility’s head of marketing. “The UK’s energy infrastructure is badly outdated – many people have meters which have not been changed for decades and updates are needed. A lot of the anger regarding the cost of the roll-out is arguably because consumers don’t feel they are getting a good deal from the Big Six firms here in the UK,” Mr McGregor adds.

There are also gathering concerns that utility firms will use installations to push other products and services while in consumers’ homes. Last year, The Independent on Sunday highlighted how British Gas was advertising for installers partly paid through sales commission. To date only a few providers have signed up to the Which? “Don’t sell just install” code of conduct.

Above and beyond this, the consumer group says customers with smart meters have reported being unable to switch between providers: “They are being told that the provider they wish to move too cannot effectively read their meter remotely, therefore they can’t switch.

“This sort of technological hitch has to be sorted quickly if the scheme isn’t going to fall into disrepute as it has in Australia, where the state government of Victoria has halted the scheme.”

Case Study

Claire Stone, Shopworker from Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

Ms Stone had a smart meter installed by First Utility last July

“It’s a great aid. I am able to keep an eye on what I am using and spending, plus which household items cost more,” she says.

Claire also likes that smart metering means an end to estimated bills. “I’d always find myself overpaying and having to go back to the energy companies for a refund time and again.” She even uses the smart meter as an educational tool for eight-year old Joseph: “I have been showing him how much power we’re using and the need to turn things off at the wall rather than leave it on standby.”

Claire has noticed a small reduction in bills but is concerned about how the costs of installation will be passed on: “I have been lucky with First Utility but you can imagine the providers will pass on the cost to customers and if usage falls the unit price will no doubt rise .”

Source:  www.independent.co.uk

Four Degrees of Separation:  Mapping the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

A global average temperature rise of 4 degC could have a severe impact on Singapore, including flooding, coastal land loss and heat-related deaths. That is according to a new map launched by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom’s Met Office, one of the leading centres for climate prediction. The map shows the potential impact of climate change in South-east Asia. Read More

By Jessica Cheam in The Straits Times (31 January 2012):

A global average temperature rise of 4 degC could have a severe impact on Singapore, including flooding, coastal land loss and heat-related deaths.

That is according to a new map launched here yesterday by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom’s Met Office, one of the leading centres for climate prediction. The map shows the potential impact of climate change in South-east Asia.

Under the scenario, global average sea levels could rise by up to 80cm by the end of the century, translating to a local sea-level rise of about 65cm.

‘For a small country with a high population density and surrounded by sea, this could have implications for flooding, coastal land loss and salt water intrusion of groundwater aquifers,’ said the centre.

Water supplies could also be affected, as parts of South-east Asia could see droughts occurring more than twice as frequently, it found.

Singapore’s unique geography makes rising temperatures a further health concern, as they could lead to an ‘urban heat island’ effect, which makes a built-up area significantly warmer than its surroundings. Increased temperatures are a major factor in heat-related mortalities, the Hadley Centre said.

Singapore could also be affected by more haze pollution, as higher temperatures would increase the risk of forest fires across Indonesia.

Presenting the map to reporters at the Hilton Hotel yesterday, Dr Chris Gordon, the centre’s head of science partnerships, said this scenario was considered ‘moderate’. In a worse scenario, temperatures could go up by 6 deg C, he said.

The objective of the map is ‘an attempt to bring climate change home to people, to help people relate to it in different areas of the world’.

In preparing the map, the Hadley Centre used its in-house climate model, which was run as many as 34 times on scenarios developed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The map predicts that a 4 deg C temperature rise would have a negative impact on Indonesia’s fishing industry, and could lead to a drop in rice production in Thailand, and more cyclones in the Philippines.

Dr Gordon said the timescale for this depends on the rate of increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

‘If we carry on at the rate we are now, it could happen perhaps by the 2060s… if action is taken, it could be delayed,’ he said.

Dr Gordon added that the Hadley Centre was collaborating with Singapore’s Meteorological Services Division on climate data and research.

The interactive map is now on Google Earth, and can be accessed at www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/high-end

Source: www.eco-business.com

Ken Hickson has the Last Word on Communication and Leadership:

Challenges Mount in the Unpredictable World of Social Media

This all started because Adrian Monck, Managing Director, Head of Communications at the World Economic Forum sent me an email with some comments from a forum at the Davos meeting.

In it he reported that:  Social networking and communications tools such as Facebook and Twitter are putting new pressures on business and government leaders and the deficit in global leadership is impeding agreement on pressing global issues such as climate change.

It got me thinking about all the businesses, groups and individuals I know which are doing their best. But we need to do a better job of “shouting from the rooftops”. Don’t be shy. Communicate effectively. Step up to the plate or platform. Speak up. Lead. Read More

Ken Hickson has the Last Word on Communication and Leadership:

Challenges Mount in the Unpredictable World of Social Media

This all started because Adrian Monck, Managing Director, Head of Communications at the World Economic Forum sent me an email with some comments from a forum at the Davos meeting.

In it he reported that:  Social networking and communications tools such as Facebook and Twitter are putting new pressures on business and government leaders and the deficit in global leadership is impeding agreement on pressing global issues such as climate change.

It got me thinking about all the businesses, groups and individuals I know which are doing their best. But we need to do a better job of “shouting from the rooftops”. Don’t be shy. Communicate effectively. Step up to the plate or platform. Speak up. Lead.

Technology and social media are significantly changing the way leaders in business and government make decisions, global opinion-shapers told participants in a session predicting scenarios for 2012 at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.

Some well-known journalists and commentators had their w say:

“The days of the one-way conversation are over whether you are the prime minister or the CEO,” said New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman. “We are all in a two-way conversation. The challenge for political and corporate leaders is to understand the power of what can be generated from below. The sweet spot for innovation is moving down. The sweet spot in policy and politics is moving down.”

Gideon Rachman, Associate Editor and Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator at the Financial Times, agreed. “Both democratic and authoritarian governments are struggling with this.” But he warned against exaggerating the impact of social media. “You wonder how they managed to storm the gates of the Bastille without Twitter,” he remarked.

Also creating governance challenges in the new hyperconnected world is the lack of global leadership, argued Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business of New York University.

“This doesn’t look like a G20 world; it looks like a G-Zero world. There is disagreement. There is no leadership. In a world where we have the rise of many powers, the US cannot impose its will.”

On important global issues from climate change to dealing with the impact of the global recession, disagreements have prevented the shaping of effective solutions, reckoned Roubini.

Leaders too are hampered in their decision-making by the mounting complexity of problems and the fast pace of developments. In addition, politicians often have to think about getting re-elected as soon as they take office. There is no time to think, Robert J. Shiller, Arthur M. Okun Professor of Economics at Yale University, observed. “You can’t be a leader unless you have time to think and develop yourself.”

In Asia, including the large, fast-growing economies of China and India, political leaders have also had to cope with the pressures from the emergence of social media and the “two-way conversations” with their people.

Asian leaders are listening and responding, noted Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. “It’s about how you respond to the wake-up calls,” Mahbubani explained.

“Things are happening in Asia under the radar screen because of the quiet and unpretentious nature of the leadership. Within the Asian cultural fabric, there is awareness that the role of government is important. People are not trying to overthrow their government. They want to get better government.”

And what do I think about all this? And does it matter?

Yes, as those who know me well and those who hear me sounding off occasionally can confirm.

Leadership is important. Effective communication is essential.

Nowhere is this more important than in the whole global space of climate change action and awareness. Many have tried and given up.

Many are still going strong in spite of insults, rejections, threats, lack of funds and diversion of Government support.

We cannot afford to be demoralised or disheartened when we hear that the very wealthy heads of mining companies in Australia listen to the likes of “Lord” Monckton when he tells then they must get control of media to win the battle for the minds of politicians and influential business people to advance the cause of those who deny that humans had anything to do with climate change.

We cannot afford not be impressed when global businesses like GE, Kraft, Walmart, Marks & Spencers make serious and genuine commitments to make their businesses more sustainable and acknowledge that they, their suppliers and customers must work towards a low carbon future with less reliance on fossil fuels.

We must acknowledge that what starts small and in one place, or one country, can lead to a movement. It can grow and take hold.

We see some great examples of sustainability in business being set in Asia by YTL and CDL. Give them credit. Give them encouragement. They are on the right track.

We cannot afford not to use all the media at our disposal – social media, new media, old media and face-to-face communication – to get key messages across and to get people on board.

We can all start some where. Energy efficiency in the home saves money too. Reducing waste. Using public transport. Designing and operating our buildings more efficiently.

Of course we need a revolution – in thinking and acting for the good of the planet and its people. That includes us.  Maybe we’ve been too polite and too quiet for too long.

We must make our voices heard. We must speak up for action on climate change. We must encourage a sense of urgency. We must get everyone on board the sustainability band wagon – at home, in the community, at schools, and in business and industry.

And we can no longer wait for others to do something about it.

Your country needs you. Your world needs you.

Source: www.weforum.org and www.abccarbon.com