The increasing scarcity of fossil energy and impacts of climate change means that companies face increasing cost and uncertainties in their operations over the medium-to-long term. A report by SolAbility shows that concessions will have to be made for these disruptions in business processes, and the lowest risk and highest business opportunities can be found through the implementation of an energy Marshall plan scenario. Read more

From SolAbility, which is a Swiss-Korean Joint Venture founded in 2005 by a former senior analyst to the DJSI (Dow Jones Sustainability Index).

Sustainability & Stock Returns: The Correlation (26 October 2012):

Left out in the cold

Report on Climate change, energy & businesses – quantifying the impacts to 2040

There is no reason – neither technical nor financial – why the world economy should not be powered by renewable energy by 2040. However, a comprehensive energy infrastructure transformation would require political consensus within, and in between countries. Such a scenario is highly unlikely.

The scarcity of fossil energy sources (decline of easily accessible and exploitable oil fields), increasing demand from emerging economies, combined with the lack of meaningful investment in alternatives suggests that cost of energy business will increase significantly in the mid-and long-term future

Apart from long-term changes, climate change is leading to increased frequency of extreme weather events, adding a high degree of uncertainty.

The combination of rising energy costs and increasing climate change impacts is affecting operational aspects and the bottom-line of businesses. Based on modelling of future energy developments and the connected climate change impacts, the financial implications on different business sectors have been analysed under three different scenarios: a BAU (business-as-usual) scenario, an energy Marshall plan scenario, and a TINA (there is no alternative) approach.

Key findings include:

•             The future price of energy and its implications on operational costs to businesses are still underestimated by most businesses

•             Energy management and energy efficiency, are becoming key competitiveness drivers in many industries, in particular in energy intensive industries

•             Business opportunities related to energy efficiency and renewable energy (both in terms of products and services) are still grossly underestimated

•             Climate change will lead to increased and unforeseeable business disruptions through higher frequency and ferocity of extreme weather events

•             Extreme weather events are leading to disruption and higher cost in the supply chain in all industries directly or indirectly depending on natural resources (water, agriculture, metals, fossil raw materials)

The lack of political consensus and/or will to tackle the fundamentals means that businesses will be left out in the cold to deal with the impacts of climate change and rising energy cost. In other words: businesses will need to develop their own counter-strategy to deal with the increasing frequency and ferocity of extreme weather events and rising energy costs.

Interestingly, risk (financial impacts) to businesses would be lowest and business opportunities highest under the Marshall scenario, which is based on the assumption of a swift implementation of an energy transformation roadmap through strategic guidance, tax and incentive revision, and large-scale investments.

You can browse the report as ebook, or download the full document as PDF.

About SolAbility

SolAbility provides sustainable management advice to corporate clients and advanced sustainable investment research covering Pan-Asian equities for institutional investors.

SolAbility’s corporate clients have been recognised as sustainability leaders in their respective business fields. 3 companies who have implemented sustainability strategies and management systems developed and designed by SolAbility are ranked as global super-sector leaders by the DJSI (most sustainable company globally in their respective industry).

Source: www.solability.com

Companies based in ASEAN are urged to develop their businesses along sustainability principles as a way of coping with the impacts of climate change at the ASEAN Sustainable Development Symposium in Bangkok. Global progress in sustainable development has been in spurts and starts, and businesses in this region will do well to fully utilise available business solutions. Read more

ASEAN business must focus on sustainability

By Ina Parlina in The Jakarta Post (6 November 2012):

Sustainable development could be low-hanging fruit for companies operating in Southeast Asia, a forum was told on Monday.

Peter Bakker, from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development said that if companies started sustainable businesses they would find “low-hanging fruit, as sustainable development is not only green, but is also efficient”.

”There is an increasingly important role for people, particularly businesses, in how well we engage in the fight to implement sustainable development, as witnessed by the greater participation of business leaders at Rio+20,” he told the ASEAN Sustainable Development Symposium in Bangkok on Monday.

While sustainability is not a new concept for business, progress has been questionable.

Bakker said the core issues were outlined in 1970 by the Club of Rome, the 1992 Rio Summit and the Rio+20 meeting. “However, the same agenda items and issues from the 1970 are still here.”

Bakker urged ASEAN member nations to act instead of arguing about climate change. “Short-term economic pressures are up due to droughts and bankruptcy, weather patterns are shifting and social tensions are increasing.”

Business solutions are available for sustainable development. “There is micro-irrigation, effective water management and renewable energy, as well as low-carbon growth in India,” Bakker said. “Businesses can scale up such measures.”

Thailand Deputy Prime Minister Kittirat Na Ranong urged stakeholders at the conference to “try to win this war to achieve sustainable development goals together”.

Business solutions are available for sustainable development

Supachai Panitchapakdi from the UN Conference on Trade and Development said he agreed that sometimes sustainable development had more to do with people, not regulations and policies.

Kan Trakulhoon, the CEO of SCG, which organized the conference, said he hoped that the event could create a network to prompt communities to become more active in sustainable development.

“In the past, community social responsibility programs gave us a good image. But now, it’s sustainable development that is more important as it gives something to the community,” he said.

“We want every company in ASEAN to commit [to sustainable development], because this is for the future of our planet.”

Bakker congratulated SCG for its recognition as the world sector leader in the building materials & fixtures category in the Dow Jones Stock Index (DJSI).

The DSJI is a set of indices comprising 2,500 large companies selected as meeting criteria, including for sustainable development performance.

Source: www.thejakartapost.com

It is well known by now that climate change will have an adverse financial impact on countries, communities and businesses. What is not so, is that mitigating it will also create serious impacts on global finances. In the report “Unburnable Carbon” by London thinktank Carbon Tracker, a “carbon bubble” could burst with meaningful climate action, putting at risk millions of dollars in hundreds of companies. Read more

Global warming: Climate change needs action but it has a cost

By Pilita Clark in Financial Times (4 November 2012):

Money could go up in smoke

The plodding pace of global talks on curbing climate change is familiar to anyone with an interest in the issue.

Governments have spent nearly two decades trying to stem the carbon dioxide emissions scientists say are responsible for global warming, and yet they keep increasing.

But what if this changed? What if countries agreed to take more urgent action to cut back the carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas?

Or what if nations sped up the individual efforts many have taken in recent years, such as China’s goal of reducing the carbon intensity of its energy supply or California’s emissions trading scheme?

Few have bothered to spend much time on this question – which is hardly surprising given the pace of global action.

But one thinktank in London, Carbon Tracker, has studied the potential financial effects of serious climate action, which has more of an impact than some expected.

The report, “Unburnable Carbon”, came out last year and concluded the world’s financial markets were carrying a “carbon bubble”, meaning investors are putting millions of dollars into hundreds of companies that could be in trouble if meaningful climate action were ever taken.

Its argument is based on estimates that to have an 80 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 2C – the level scientists say should be met to avoid potentially dangerous climate change – only 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide should be emitted between now and 2050.

The world’s proven coal, gas and oil reserves already amount to nearly five times that amount, and the reserves held by the top 100 listed coal companies, along with the top 100 oil and gas companies, come to 745gt – still far more than the 565gt “budget” for the next 40 years.

The 2C target is not entirely fanciful: it was included in the outcome of the 2010 global climate talks in Mexico, though how it is to be achieved is unclear given countries are now aiming at finalising a climate deal by 2015 that would not take effect until 2020.

Still, if action is taken after 2020, at least one large bank says the impact could be significant.

“This has potentially profound implications for the natural resources sector, notably producers of coal, the most carbon intensive fossil fuel,” analysts at HSBC wrote in a June 2012 research note that examined the issues raised in the carbon bubble report.

If constraints on carbon emissions were imposed after 2020, they could reduce coal asset valuations by as much as 44 per cent, HSBC said, and the impact would hit some companies harder, depending on how much they depended on coal for their revenues, and by extension, stock exchanges on which more of those companies were listed, such as London, where the mining sector makes up about 12 per cent of the FTSE 100 index.

HSBC is not the only financial body to have taken an interest in the Unburnable Carbon report.

Pension funds in the UK, Australia and South Africa have also been looking at it, says its lead author, James Leaton, a consultant on sustainability issues.

One Australian pension fund manager, Local Government Super (LGS), has used its arguments to back a green shares option that excludes coal mining, an important industry there.

The report also led Carbon Tracker’s chairman, Jeremy Leggett, and other financial sector figures with an interest in climate, to meet Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s executive director for financial stability, this year to discuss the idea that the carbon bubble could pose a risk to stability in the UK.

It is far from clear the Bank will act on such warnings. A spokesman declined to comment when asked if any action had been contemplated since the Carbon Tracker meeting.

That is no surprise says Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association, who argues that until there is evidence of a binding global agreement to limit carbon emissions, investors should not be concerned.

“It’s a big ‘if’, isn’t it,” he says. “If there is concerted action on climate change, there may be repercussions.

“But you could just as easily say if there is concerted action on global poverty, companies that have shares in coal might actually be more valuable.

“So, I don’t know why you would assume action on climate change is more likely than action on poverty.”

Mr Leaton disagrees. “We’re not hanging it all on a global climate deal,” he says, explaining countries were taking actions of their own – such as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s recent efforts to curb coal plant pollution – and technological advances in renewable energy also posed a risk to fossil fuel use.

“There is a range of measures that add up to making fossil fuel less competitive,” he says.

But surely investors would be aware of such changes and have plenty of time to react?

Not necessarily, says Nick Robins the head of HSBC’s climate change centre of excellence, who co-authored the bank’s coal report.

This is a long term problem and markets have a very short-term focus, he says, “so the market is likely to be surprised”.

“There’s an impression people can trade out of these sorts of problems in time but one of the things we saw in the financial crisis in 2007 is that this is not always possible.”

Source: www.ft.com

To achieve national renewable energy targets, it should remain untouched by politics, according to Australia’s Climate Change Authority. Its report recommends that Australia stand firm on its target as any reworking will impact investor confidence in the renewable energy industry and affect its development in the long run. The sustainable industry in Australia also received another boost with the appointment of Ben Waters, GE’s Director of Ecomagination, as the chair of Sustainable Business Australia, bringing a wealth of experience in innovative business practices and driving sustainable development. Read more

Aussies Try Clean Energy Policy Without Politics

By Pete Danko in Earth Techling:

Like the U.K., Australia is trying to insulate questions regarding climate change and energy policy from politics — emphasis on trying — and that could help save the country’s renewable energy target. It’s an approach the United States might want to consider.

The expert Climate Change Authority, analogous to the U.K.’s independent statutory body the Committee on Climate Change, released a draft paper late last week recommending Australia stand firm on its 2020 target, commonly referred to as 20 percent renewables, in order to maintain investor confidence in the clean energy sector.

Some politicians and business and energy interests in Australia have been pushing for a pullback on the target – which is actually a gigawatt-hour amount – saying that Australians were headed for skyrocketing power bills because the incentives that underpin the target will actually push Australia well beyond 20 percent renewables, mainly because the country is projected to use much less electricity than had been previously forecast.

In its paper, the CCA agreed that renewable energy generation could very well end up surging past 20 percent; it estimated that with current policies in place Australia will be getting about 25 percent of electricity supply from renewables in 2020. But the committee said ratepayers would gain little if the target were reworked:

The Authority considers that the projected resource cost savings to society overall that might be achieved by reducing the target would not be large enough to offset the damage to investor confidence that such a change could entail.

In terms of the impacts on electricity prices paid by energy users, taking into account both the cost of certificates and the decrease in wholesale electricity prices, modelling to date suggests that the difference between the scenarios is likely to be small, and the net present value of the impact on average household bills between now and 2030 would not be significant.

And perhaps more importantly, the committee feared the damage a shift in policy might do to investment in clean energy:

The Australian electricity market is already facing considerable uncertainty, particularly in relation to the future of the carbon price. The Authority is concerned that adding to these uncertainties by recommending major changes to current policy settings at this time could increase risk premiums required by lenders and investors in renewable energy, and may affect perceptions of risk for investors in clean technologies more broadly.

This point is particularly interesting from an American perspective; with energy and climate change policy highly politicized, governments – the federal government, and state governments as well – are finding it increasingly difficult to establish or maintain long-term policies that investors, entrepreneurs and the scientific community can act on. Witness the debate about the wind energy production tax credit; it’s due to expire in two months. Will it? Nobody knows. A lame duck Congress might rescue it. Or it might not. Meanwhile, the industry is stalled and workers are being laid off.

Ultimately, Australia’s government will make the decision on climate and energy policy, but with an independent body providing ballast in the roiling waters of debate, the likelihood of stable, considered and ultimately more effective long-term policy decision-making does seem to be enhanced.

The CCA’s 185-page discussion paper “Renewable Energy Target Review,” is available online as a PDF.

http://www.earthtechling.com

MEDIA RELEASE

SBA (6 November 2012):

GE’S BEN WATERS APPOINTED AS CHAIR OF SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS AUSTRALIA

Sustainable Business Australia (SBA) today announced it had appointed Ben Waters, GE’s Director of Ecomagination for Australia and New Zealand, as its Chair of Directors.  The appointment follows Mr Waters’ admission to the SBA Board as a non-executive Director in December 2011.

Mr Waters said he was pleased to accept the position and was looking forward to working closely with the SBA Board to further promote sustainability as good business practice.

“I am honoured to take on this role with the SBA Board and glad to be able to support and work more closely as Chair with SBA’s CEO Andrew Petersen,” Mr Waters said.

“In the coming months we will be strongly promoting SBA’s sustainability agenda as a competitive business proposition, emphasizing that sustainability is not just the right thing to do, but the commercially smart way to operate,” he said.

SBA CEO Andrew Petersen said he was delighted that Ben Waters would be the new Chair.

“Ben will bring a wealth of business experience to the role and has clearly demonstrated his capabilities since he joined the Board last December.

“I would also like to thank Rob Purves for agreeing to stay on the Board and for his tremendous leadership role and support throughout his six years as chair.”

Outgoing Chair Robert Purves said he had greatly enjoyed his years as Chair of the SBA Board.

“While we have faced many challenges over this period, including a major branding change from Environment Business Australia to Sustainable Business Australia at the end of 2010, I am proud to have been associated with such an important and effective organisation that has established some essential partnerships with government and businesses in a rapidly-changing commercial environment,” Mr Purves said.

“As GE’s Director of Ecomagination, Ben Waters has already become an influential voice on innovative business practices in Australia, demonstrating a commitment to driving sustainable development in this country.

“Ben’s knowledge and expertise will help strengthen SBA and propel the sustainable business agenda at an exciting time of change, which will provide added benefits for SBA’s national membership.

“I believe SBA will become increasingly important for business and government and I am sure it will consolidate its position as a critical advocacy group and think tank with Ben Waters as Chair,” he said.

As new Chair of SBA, Mr Waters will be providing the opening address on 8 November at the inaugural Australian Sustainability Conference & Exhibition (ASCE), which will be held at the Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre from 8-9 November 2012 (www.australiansustainability.com.au).

Sustainable Business Australia is the peak body for the low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector. We are also a think tank focusing on the growth of ‘new markets, new industries and new jobs’ as part of the sustainable development agenda.

Source: www.sba.asn.au

Key issues concerning the regulation of our water resources can often seem esoteric to the average citizen, putting a barrier to engagement. This is due to change with the development of a computer-based simulation by Global Water Games giving players the experience of real-time economic and environmental impacts of their actions as key stakeholders. This can lead to a higher level of collaboration in finding solutions, making it a powerful agent for multi-sector stakeholder engagement. Read more

How game-playing created a sea change for one bay’s stakeholders

By Anna Clark in GreenBiz (31 October 2012):

Green enterprises are constantly challenging the conventional wisdom that environmental regulation impedes profitability, but a group of innovators are now turning the challenge into a game. The Global Water Games, a collaborative initiative of the University of Virginia and Azure Worldwide, co-founded by Philippe Cousteau and UVA alumnus Andrew Snowhite, has developed a computer-based simulation to demonstrate the interrelation of human activity and natural processes. Taking the roles of key stakeholders, game players make decisions based on their livelihoods or regulatory authority, experiencing real-time the economic and environmental impacts of their actions.

“The game format provides a way for citizens to engage with these issues as critical decision makers,” said Jeffrey Plank, Ph.D., associate vice president for research of UVA. “Initially, players rely on themselves, but then they learn that only through collaboration do solutions arise. This game is a powerful change agent for multi-sector stakeholder engagement. This template is the first of its kind.”

Environmental regulations have been controversial since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring put industry in an uproar 50 years ago, and the debate continues. From banning plastic bags to subsidizing renewable energy, proposed regulations can be vague in terms of costs and benefits, and misunderstanding leads to gridlock. In certain cases, environmental health benefits for all parties are clearer, such as when Chesapeake Bay was polluted by excess nitrogen and phosphorus, causing the fishing industry to suffer. Twenty years of real-world cleanup make the Chesapeake Bay rich subject matter for Global Water Games’ first computer-based prototype simulation, UVA Bay Game.

The game presents a microcosm of the issue multi-sector groups face everywhere: How do you get stakeholders with seemingly divergent interests to find common ground? By enabling participants to visualize environmental issues such as nonpoint source pollution as economic threats — and giving them the opportunity to walk in each other’s shoes — the technology has the capacity to turn adversaries into allies. The ensuing dialogue can revolutionize policy-making and environmental education, leading to rapid development of win-win solutions to problems that have long divided regulators and business. “What has taken us 20 years of trying to get through to people,” said one game player, “can now be demonstrated in two hours.”

A Watershed Moment

“I remember being with my grandfather, Jacques Yves Cousteau, in New York City,” recalled Philippe Cousteau, Jr. during a press conference at SXSW ECO in Austin, Texas. “He was 79 and I was 9. I was playing a Game Boy, the one sold with that huge add-on magnifying glass. He turned to me and said, ‘What about that Game Boy?’ I lit up. He saw it as a tool not just for entertainment, but also for education.” The world famous explorer and scientist recognized the opportunity to leverage the power of games to help people understand the commitment to the environment. Philippe Cousteau — social entrepreneur, CNN correspondent, and explorer in his own right — is carrying on his grandfather’s legacy by using his own platform to commercialize the new game-based conservation technology.

“Water is the defining crisis of the 21st century, and this game is an interesting and fun way to help people understand the complexity,” said Cousteau. “When people first play the game, they focus on an individualized pursuit. When I saw them play over a period of time, I noticed they moved out of their bubble. By the third and fourth session, there was this ‘aha’ moment when they began to reach out to each other. After the sixth or seventh try, they started to see themselves as working together to solve the problem.” (For more on gaming and the environment from Philippe Cousteau, listen to the podcast.)

When I got my chance to demo the game, about 40 of us were seated at workstations with our laptops. Philippe and several UVA professors walked around answering questions about the relatively user-friendly prototype of the simulation game. They also filled us in on facts about the Chesapeake, a watershed extending over six states and 64,000 square miles. Playing the game, we began to see how everything we do on the land—including the use of automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides, toilets, sewage, water and electricity—affects the streams, rivers and the bay. It was our job to balance economic with environmental interests to maintain bay health, on which we all depended.

Representing the 27 million residents in the watershed, each player is assigned a stakeholder role. Farmers make decisions about whether to leave land fallow or apply cover crops to their fields, for instance, and land developers choose between regular and sustainable development. I was assigned “Bay Regulator,” and I confess it was a power trip. With the stroke of a key, I could regulate the fishing season without restraint. (The shorter the dredging season, the better the environmental health of the bay; the longer the season, the more days the fishermen could fish).

Initially, greed and power ran amok, as agriculturalists tried to max out their profits and regulators remained rigid. Before long, we could see the results of our decisions on the main screen. The overall health of the bay began to decline steeply due to runoff from cattle farms, which ended up affecting the crab yield and ultimately the economy. Going into it, I admit that my interest was in protecting the bay first, industry second. But sitting across from a “cattle rancher” stakeholder, I got another point of view. “They want me to make $500,000 in improvements,” he explained, “but the incentive is only $600.” Suddenly, it became very clear how regulation could become uneven and counterproductive.

By the fourth try, players started getting up and walking across the room to sit together, working toward a common goal: clean up the bay or risk further economic and environmental damage. All over the room, participants discussed the merits and drawbacks of their actions, possible incentives, and suggestions for achieving consensus. In under two hours, we managed to restore the bay back to health, walking away wiser, more experienced, and I daresay, as friends.

What’s Next for Global Water Games?

At SXSW ECO, the team announced a partnership with The Nature Conservancy to develop another iteration of the game called the Texas Water Game. “Water is a fixed asset,” said Nature Conservancy Texas State Director Laura Huffman. “The amount of water hasn’t changed, but we’re moving from 7 billion to 9 billion people in the space of a few decades. Texas is a great laboratory for water conservation because we have 25 million people now and we’re projected to add at least 10 million more by 2050. We are going to have to learn to solve other people’s problems. The game shows the benefits of working together and the drawbacks of not working together.”

Since the launch of the Global Water Games, research collected from players suggests new directions for research in behavior change and policy development. The pioneering, interdisciplinary team continues to introduce the technology to classrooms and multi-sector stakeholder settings all over the world. While the subject matter is about conservation, these innovative, participatory simulations are also turning out to be phenomenal tools for teaching systems-based thinking. And that’s a good thing, because as much as we humans are changing our environment, we’re going to need to change our thinking even more.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

A glimpse into the distinguished minds of sustainability and energy experts at the CNBC-Shell Energy Brainstorm offers a wealth of ideas touching on energy issues and opportunities. At the top of the list is the need for realistic prices on carbon and energy, which will then drive development and investments in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy. This and many more gems on how to bring about sustainable change in the way we conduct business and develop communities from the brainstorm session. Read more

Ken Hickson joins the Energy brainstorm with CNBC and Shell

Brainstorm Call to Monetarise Efficiency, Effectively Priced Energy and Carbon

By Ken Hickson

None of the brainstormers could contain themselves. Ideas and opinions flowed freely and flew across the table and across the room.

Cameras caught at least some of the action, while elevator pitch deliveries from chosen representatives from the ten tables contained essential highlights of the wide-ranging energy issues and opportunities aired.

Having Minister Grace Fu on hand – from the Prime Minister’s office no less – did not deter anyone else from raising thorny issues or extreme clean energy options, and whether they had relevance at home or abroad, didn’t seem to matter.

Vocal contributions were extracted from all, even from my table which was also graced by the presence of Jose Maria Figueres, President of the Carbon War room, brother of UN Climate Change boss Christiana, and son of Costa Rica’s game-changing former President.

He freely shared his thoughts and wisdom too, as did fellow participant Dr Geh Min, the noted conservationist and former President of the Singapore Nature Society.

The good thing about the CNBC Shell brainstorm format is that everyone has the chance to have their say, unlike many conferences and forum where the “big-wigs” monopolise the show and the rest of us – whether media or common delegates – might be lucky enough to get an odd question in.

So what’s the verdict for the future energy scenario in Asia in 2035, for which we were all asked to do some considered crystal ball gazing?

Consistently, the matter of a price on carbon – and a more realistic price for energy – was something raised repeatedly which came out tops. The world must face up to and implement effective pricing – which will drive, and be driven by, energy efficiency and investment in renewables –to maintain a liveable climate, energy security and a safe environment.

Maybe there wasn’t one single great idea, but there was enough energy and brain power in the room to give some hope that we are in good hands. Maybe we can plan ahead and effectively manoeuvre our way through a minefield to deal with a volatile and unpredictable future.

Energy was obviously at the heart of the matter and here are some of the brainstormed highlights:

•             Governments must work with business and provide incentives to effect a move to a low carbon economy and a clean energy future

•             There are “multiple benefits” in energy efficiency – save energy, save money – which would make carbon taxes or higher energy prices more affordable and palatable

•             The need for effective regional sourcing and distributing of renewable energy with cross country grids, underway in Europe and necessary in Asia

•             Accessing and utilising energy and environmental data more effectively to help to “monetarise efficiency” – the winning idea from table 4!

•             Let’s create wealth from waste – it’s a resource and not something to destroy, but instead turn into energy

•             Government must be an enabler to drive change through public private partnerships and boost economic performance to manage population growth

•             Maybe it will take a global catastrophe – in the order of a Fukushima – to make us accept the inevitable – a global energy tax and a pan Asian high voltage grid

•             To boost private sector investment in renewable energy and achieve “grid parity” , regulation must be reduced

•             There will be – or need to be –“transformational technology” to decarbonise economies along with a mindset change through research and education

•             Cities are where change can best take place – change the culture, reduce energy consumption without reduced levels of comfort

Ken Hickson, who participated in the brainstorm in 2011 as well as this year, is the Chairman & CEO of the Singapore-based consultancy Sustain Ability Showcase Asia , the producer of the respected abc carbon express, a fortnightly review of all things related to climate, energy and environment, and the author of the 2009 landmark book “The ABC of Carbon”.  He has just released his list – for the second year – of 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders.

Source: www.energyopportunities.tv/Singapore